Bechorot Daf 56 (בכורות דף נ״ו)

📖 Breakdown

Amud Aleph (56a)

Segment 1

TYPE: היקש (המשך מדף נה:)

Rav Kahana’s derivation completed: like a firstborn son, purchased or gifted animals are excluded from animal tithe

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מָה בָּנֶיךָ — אֵין בְּלָקוּחַ וּבְמַתָּנָה, אַף צֹאנְךָ וּבְקָרְךָ — אֵינוֹ בְּלָקוּחַ וּבְמַתָּנָה.

English Translation:

Just as the redemption of your firstborn son does not apply to a child who was purchased or received as a gift, i.e., the mitzva applies only to one’s own son, so too, the mitzva of separating tithe from your flock and your herd does not apply to animals that were purchased or received as a gift.

קלאוד על הדף:

This completes Rav Kahana’s answer from the end of 55b, which cited Exodus 22:28-29, where ‘the firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me’ is followed directly by ‘so you shall do with your oxen and with your sheep’. The juxtaposition creates a hekesh: the animals are treated like the son. Just as the mitzva of redeeming the firstborn applies only to a man’s own son, never to a child he bought or received, so animal tithe applies only to animals born in one’s own possession. This supplies the source for the mishna’s exemption of purchased and gifted animals.

Key Terms:

• הֶקֵּשׁ = a juxtaposition of two topics in one verse, teaching that the law of one applies to the other
• בְּלָקוּחַ וּבְמַתָּנָה = with something purchased or received as a gift
• פִּדְיוֹן הַבֵּן = the redemption of a firstborn son from a kohen for five sela
• מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה = animal tithe: every tenth animal counted out of the pen is consecrated and offered

Segment 2

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

The verse speaks of firstborn animals; since a firstborn needs no act of sanctification, the word ‘do’ is applied to tithe

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְהַאי בִּבְכוֹר כְּתִיב! אָמַר קְרָא: ״כֵּן תַּעֲשֶׂה״, אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לִבְכוֹר, דְּלָא אִיתֵיהּ בַּעֲשִׂיָּיה, דִּבְרֶחֶם קָדוֹשׁ — תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה.

English Translation:

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this verse, which juxtaposes the firstborn son to an animal, is written with regard to redemption of a firstborn, not with regard to animal tithe. The Gemara explains that the verse states: “So you shall do with your oxen, and with your sheep: Seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me” (Exodus 22:29). If this is not needed for the matter of firstborn animals, which do not require any action to sanctify them as the animal is already consecrated when it leaves the womb, apply it to the matter of animal tithe, where an animal is sanctified only when the owner counts it as the tenth animal.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara objects that the phrase ‘so you shall do with your oxen’ plainly refers to firstborn animals, not to tithe. The answer uses the principle of im eino inyan: a firstborn animal is holy from the womb and needs no ‘doing’ at all, so the word ‘you shall do’ would be superfluous there. It is therefore reassigned to animal tithe, where the sanctity comes only through an act, the owner’s counting of the tenth animal. The verb itself points to the mitzva that requires human action.

Key Terms:

• אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן = if it is not needed for this matter, apply it to another — a rule of exegesis for an apparently superfluous phrase
• עֲשִׂיָּיה = doing — an act by which an animal becomes sanctified
• קָדוֹשׁ מֵרֶחֶם = holy from the womb; a firstborn is sanctified automatically at birth
• ״כֵּן תַּעֲשֶׂה״ = so you shall do (Exodus 22:29), the phrase being expounded

Segment 3

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Why not apply the phrase to sin and guilt offerings? Because a son, like tithe, does not come on account of sin

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאֵימָא: תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְחַטָּאת וּלְאָשָׁם! דּוּמְיָא דְּבִנְךָ — מָה בִּנְךָ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא עַל חֵטְא, אַף צֹאנְךָ וְשׁוֹרְךָ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא עַל חֵטְא.

English Translation:

The Gemara suggests: But instead one can say to apply this phrase: “So you shall do,” to the matter of a sin offering and a guilt offering rather than animal tithe, i.e., one should derive that these offerings are sanctified only if they originally belonged to the individual who is attempting to sanctify them, not if they are purchased or received as a gift. The Gemara explains that one expounds the phrase as referring to animal tithe because that case is similar to the case of: Your son. Just as your son does not come to be redeemed to atone for a sin, so too, the phrase: Your sheep and your oxen, discussed in the verse, is referring to animal tithe, which does not come to the Temple to atone for a sin. Sin offerings and guilt offerings are brought only if one commits a sin.

קלאוד על הדף:

If the phrase is free to be reassigned, why choose animal tithe rather than sin and guilt offerings, which also require an act of designation? The Gemara answers that the reassigned phrase must still match the son it is juxtaposed with. Redeeming a firstborn son has nothing to do with sin, and animal tithe likewise comes regardless of any transgression, while chatat and asham are brought only to atone. The hekesh therefore points to the offering that resembles the son.

Key Terms:

• חַטָּאת = a sin offering, brought for an unwitting transgression that carries karet
• אָשָׁם = a guilt offering, brought for specific sins such as theft or misuse of consecrated property
• דּוּמְיָא דְּבִנְךָ = similar to your son — the reassigned law must resemble the son in the verse
• בָּא עַל חֵטְא = comes on account of a sin

Segment 4

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Why not burnt and peace offerings? Because a son, like tithe, is never brought as a vow or a gift

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאֵימָא: תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְעוֹלָה וְלִשְׁלָמִים! דּוּמְיָא דְּבִנְךָ — מָה בִּנְךָ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא בְּנֶדֶר וּנְדָבָה, אַף צֹאנְךָ וְשׁוֹרְךָ כּוּ׳.

English Translation:

The Gemara suggests: But instead one can say to apply this phrase to the matter of a burnt offering and a peace offering, which can be brought even if one has not sinned, like the animal tithe. The Gemara explains that one expounds the phrase as referring to animal tithe because that case is similar to the case of: Your son. Just as your son cannot come in the form of a vow or a gift, so too, the phrase: Your sheep and your oxen, discussed in the verse, is referring to animal tithe, which cannot be brought as a vow or as a gift. It is not referring to a burnt offering or a peace offering, both of which can be brought as a vow or as a gift.

קלאוד על הדף:

The next candidate is the olah and the shelamim, which, like tithe, are not brought for sin. The Gemara again appeals to the likeness of the son. Redemption of the firstborn is an obligation that arises by itself; no one vows or volunteers it. Animal tithe is likewise a fixed obligation that arises from the herd, whereas burnt and peace offerings are typically brought as a neder or a nedava. So the son’s character excludes these offerings as well.

Key Terms:

• עוֹלָה = a burnt offering, entirely consumed on the altar
• שְׁלָמִים = a peace offering, eaten by the owners with portions for the altar and the kohen
• נֶדֶר = a vow: ‘I take upon myself to bring an offering’, with liability if the animal is lost
• נְדָבָה = a gift offering: ‘this animal is an offering’, with no further liability

Segment 5

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Why not the pilgrim’s burnt offering of appearance? Because a son, like tithe, has no fixed time

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאֵימָא: תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְעוֹלַת רְאִיָּיה! דּוּמְיָא דְּבִנְךָ — מָה בִּנְךָ שֶׁאֵין קָבוּעַ לוֹ זְמַן, אַף שׁוֹרְךָ וְצֹאנְךָ שֶׁאֵין קָבוּעַ לוֹ זְמַן.

English Translation:

The Gemara suggests: But one can say instead that one should apply this phrase to the matter of a burnt offering of appearance, which one brings when he ascends to Jerusalem on one of the three pilgrimage Festivals. This offering is not brought for a sin, nor as a vow or a gift, as it is obligatory. The Gemara explains that one expounds the phrase as referring to animal tithe because that case is similar to the case of: Your son. Just as your son does not have a fixed time of year to be redeemed, but is redeemed after the thirtieth day from his birth, so too: Your oxen and your sheep, discussed in the verse, is referring to animal tithe, which does not have a fixed time to be brought. By contrast, the burnt offering of appearance is brought only on the three pilgrimage Festivals.

קלאוד על הדף:

The olat re’iyah is neither for sin nor a voluntary vow or gift: it is an obligation, like tithe. The Gemara finds the remaining difference: the olat re’iyah is bound to the three pilgrimage Festivals, while a firstborn son is redeemed any time after thirty days, and animal tithe has no set date. With four candidates excluded on three criteria (sin, volunteering, fixed time), animal tithe is the only offering that matches the son in every respect, so the derivation stands.

Key Terms:

• עוֹלַת רְאִיָּיה = the burnt offering of appearance, brought by a pilgrim on the Festival
• קָבוּעַ לוֹ זְמַן = having a fixed time
• שְׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים = the three pilgrimage Festivals: Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot

Segment 6

TYPE: קושיא

If tithe follows the son, no purchased animal should ever be tithed; why do purchased fetuses enter the pen?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אִי מָה בִּנְךָ אֵינוֹ בְּלָקוּחַ כְּלָל, אַף שׁוֹרְךָ וְצֹאנְךָ אֵינוֹ בְּלָקוּחַ כְּלָל, אַלְּמָה אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָקַח עֲשָׂרָה עוּבָּרִין בִּמְעֵי אִמָּן — כּוּלָּם נִכְנָסִין לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר?

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: If the halakha of the tithing of a purchased animal is derived from the juxtaposition to the mitzva of redemption of a firstborn son, then all the halakhot of one should apply to the other: Just as your firstborn son cannot be purchased at all, under any circumstances, so too, your oxen and your sheep should not be subject to animal tithe if they are purchased at all. If so, why does Rabbi Asi say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one purchased ten animal fetuses while they were still in their mothers’ wombs and the animals were born once he already owned them, they all enter the pen to be tithed? If the halakha is derived from a firstborn son, there should be no concept of tithe in the case of purchased animals.

קלאוד על הדף:

Having established the hekesh, the Gemara presses it to its limit. A hekesh usually implies that the two cases match in every detail. A purchased son is never subject to redemption in any circumstance, so a purchased animal should never be tithed. Yet Rabbi Asi quotes Rabbi Yochanan that ten fetuses bought in the womb and born in the buyer’s possession all enter the pen for tithing. Either the hekesh is incomplete or Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling is difficult.

Key Terms:

• עוּבָּרִין בִּמְעֵי אִמָּן = fetuses in their mothers’ wombs
• נִכְנָסִין לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר = enter the pen to be tithed — counted out with the herd, every tenth consecrated
• אַלְּמָה = why, then?
• רַבִּי אַסִּי = Rabbi Asi (Assi), an Amora of Eretz Yisrael and student of Rabbi Yochanan

Segment 7

TYPE: תירוץ (רבא)

Rava: ‘you shall do’ limits the exclusion to the time of doing, when the animal is fit for the altar

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רָבָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״ — בִּשְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּיה מִיעֵט הַכָּתוּב.

English Translation:

Rava said in response that the verse states: “So you shall do with your oxen, and with your sheep: Seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me.” The verse excludes purchased animals from animal tithe only at the time of doing, i.e., from the time the animals are fit to be sacrificed in the Temple, not while they are still in their mothers’ wombs, as at that time they are as yet unfit to be sacrificed on the altar.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rava answers from the same verse. The word ‘you shall do’ marks the moment the law is concerned with: the time when the animal can be ‘done’, that is, offered, from the eighth day on, as the verse continues. The exclusion of purchased animals applies to an animal bought at that stage. A fetus is not yet fit for anything, so buying it is not considered acquiring a tithable animal; once born in the buyer’s domain it counts as born to him. The hekesh with the son holds, but only within this window.

Key Terms:

• בִּשְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּיה = at the time of doing — when the animal is fit to be offered
• מִיעֵט הַכָּתוּב = the verse excluded
• רָבָא = Rava, a leading fourth-generation Babylonian Amora
• ״בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי תִּתְּנוֹ לִי״ = on the eighth day you shall give it to Me, the end of the verse

Segment 8

TYPE: גופא וקושיא

Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling on purchased fetuses is cited in full and challenged from the mishna

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָקַח עֲשָׂרָה עוּבָּרִים בִּמְעֵי אִמָּן — כּוּלָּן נִכְנָסִין לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר. וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: הַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹ שֶׁנִּיתַּן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה פָּטוּר מִן מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה!

English Translation:

The Gemara discusses the matter itself, to cite the relevant discussion in full. Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one purchased ten animal fetuses while they were still in their mothers’ wombs and the animals were born once he already owned them, they all enter the pen to be tithed. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: One who purchases an animal or has an animal that was given to him as a gift is exempt from animal tithe? If so, why isn’t the owner of these fetuses also exempt from animal tithe?

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara now examines Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling directly, using the formula ‘the matter itself’ (gufa). The challenge comes from the mishna of 55b: one who buys an animal or receives it as a gift is exempt from animal tithe, with no distinction between born animals and fetuses. A purchase of fetuses is still a purchase, so on the plain reading of the mishna they should be exempt.

Key Terms:

• גּוּפָא = the matter itself — a formula introducing a full discussion of a statement cited earlier in passing
• וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן = but did we not learn in the mishna?
• פָּטוּר מִן מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה = exempt from animal tithe

Segment 9

TYPE: תירוץ ותיובתא

Rabbi Elazar defends his teacher with ‘at the time of doing’, and is challenged from a baraita about an animal not yet of age

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן חֲזַאי בְּחֶילְמָא, מִילְּתָא מְעַלְּיָא אָמֵינָא. אָמַר קְרָא ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״, בִּשְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּיה מִיעֵט הַכָּתוּב. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְיָקִים לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַלָּקוּחַ חָל עַל מְחוּסַּר זְמַן!

English Translation:

Rabbi Elazar said: I saw Rabbi Yoḥanan in a dream, which is a sign that I am saying a proper matter in explaining his opinion. The verse states: “So you shall do” (Exodus 22:29); the verse excludes purchased animals from animal tithe only at the time of doing, i.e., from the time the animals are fit to be sacrificed in the Temple. Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim raised an objection to Rabbi Elazar from a baraita: The exemption of a purchased animal applies even to an animal whose time has not yet arrived, i.e., before it is eight days old and fit to be sacrificed in the Temple. By the same token, the exemption should also apply to a fetus, despite the fact that it is not yet fit to be sacrificed.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Elazar, Rabbi Yochanan’s disciple, gives the same answer as Rava: the exclusion applies only ‘at the time of doing’. He adds that he saw Rabbi Yochanan in a dream and took it as a sign that his explanation was correct. Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim objects with a baraita: the purchase exemption applies even to a mechusar zman, an animal under eight days old. If an animal not yet fit for the altar is excluded when bought, a fetus, also unfit, should be too.

Key Terms:

• חֶילְמָא = a dream
• מִילְּתָא מְעַלְּיָא = a fine, proper statement
• מְחוּסַּר זְמַן = lacking time — an animal less than eight days old, not yet fit to be offered
• אֵיתִיבֵיהּ = he raised an objection to him from a tannaitic source

Segment 10

TYPE: תירוץ

Rabbi Elazar: the baraita is unreliable, or it follows Rabbi Shimon, who treats an underage animal like a firstborn

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זוֹ אֵינָהּ מִשְׁנָה, וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר מִשְׁנָה — רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה הִיא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: מְחוּסַּר זְמַן נִכְנָס לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר, וַהֲרֵי הוּא כִּבְכוֹר, מָה בְּכוֹר קָדוֹשׁ לִפְנֵי זְמַנּוֹ וְקָרֵב לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ — אַף מְחוּסַּר זְמַן קָדוֹשׁ לִפְנֵי זְמַנּוֹ וְקָרֵב לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ.

English Translation:

Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim: This baraita is not a tannaitic source that can be relied upon, as it is not accurate. And if you say this baraita is a tannaitic source that can be relied upon, it is only in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon, who says that an animal whose time has not yet arrived also enters the pen to be tithed, and in this regard it is like a firstborn animal. Just as a firstborn animal is sanctified before its time arrives to be sacrificed, but is sacrificed after its time, i.e., after it is at least eight days old, so too, an animal whose time has not yet arrived enters the pen to be tithed, and if it comes out as the tenth animal, it is sanctified before its time for sacrifice has arrived but is sacrificed only after its time, i.e., after it is at least eight days old.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Elazar gives two answers. First, the baraita is not an authoritative teaching. Second, even if it is, it reflects Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda’s report of Rabbi Shimon’s view that a mechusar zman is tithed and is sanctified now but offered after eight days, just like a firstborn. On that view the ‘time of doing’ begins at birth, so a newborn bought before eight days is already a purchased tithable animal. But a fetus is not tithable even for Rabbi Shimon, so Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling stands.

Key Terms:

• זוֹ אֵינָהּ מִשְׁנָה = this is not a (reliable) tannaitic teaching
• רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה = a Tanna who transmitted the teachings of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai
• קָדוֹשׁ לִפְנֵי זְמַנּוֹ וְקָרֵב לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ = sanctified before its time and offered after its time
• בְּכוֹר = a firstborn animal, holy from birth but offered only from the eighth day

Segment 11

TYPE: ברייתא וקושיא

A baraita: the prostitute’s payment that is tithed is one he gave her and bought back; but a purchased animal is exempt

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב: אֵיזֶהוּ אֶתְנַן שֶׁנִּכְנָס לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר? כֹּל שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ וְחָזַר וּלְקָחוֹ הֵימֶנָּה. וְהָא אִיפְּסִיל לֵיהּ בְּלוֹקֵחַ!

English Translation:

A tanna taught a baraita in the presence of Rav: Which is the type of animal set aside as payment to a prostitute, about which the Sages said (see 57a) that it enters the pen to be tithed? Any animal that he gave to her as payment and subsequently purchased back from her. The tanna asked: But doesn’t it become disqualified from the status of animal tithe as a purchased animal, as he purchased it back from the prostitute?

קלאוד על הדף:

A tanna recited before Rav a baraita answering a question the mishna on 57a will raise: which etnan, an animal given as a prostitute’s fee, enters the pen to be tithed? Answer: one that the man gave her and later bought back. An etnan is barred from the altar (Deuteronomy 23:19), so the baraita needs a case where it is still tithed. The difficulty is obvious: if he bought it back, it is a purchased animal and the mishna of 55b exempts it.

Key Terms:

• אֶתְנַן = a prostitute’s fee; an animal given as such may not be offered on the altar
• תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב = a reciter taught a baraita before Rav
• וְחָזַר וּלְקָחוֹ הֵימֶנָּה = and he then bought it back from her
• אִיפְּסִיל לֵיהּ בְּלוֹקֵחַ = it is disqualified as a purchased animal

Segment 12

TYPE: תירוץ

The tanna overlooked Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling: the animal was bought back while still a fetus

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אִישְׁתְּמִיטְתֵּיהּ הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָקַח עֲשָׂרָה עוּבָּרִין בִּמְעֵי אִמָּן — כּוּלָּם נִכְנָסִין לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר.

English Translation:

The Gemara answers that this statement escaped that tanna: As Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one purchased ten animal fetuses while they were still in their mothers’ wombs they all enter the pen to be tithed. Accordingly, the baraita can be understood as referring to an animal that was given to a prostitute as payment and purchased back from her while it was still inside its mother’s womb.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara answers that the questioner had forgotten Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling, the subject of this whole discussion. A fetus bought in the womb is tithed once it is born in the buyer’s possession. So the baraita speaks of a fetus that went to the prostitute inside its pregnant mother and came back the same way. It was ‘purchased’ only before the time of doing, so it is tithed. The ruling on fetuses now resolves a separate baraita.

Key Terms:

• אִישְׁתְּמִיטְתֵּיהּ = it escaped him — he overlooked it
• לָקַח = purchased
• כּוּלָּם = all of them

Amud Bet (56b)

Segment 1

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Why must he buy it back? Let her tithe it herself. Answer: she is a gentile prostitute

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְתִיעַשְּׂרֵהּ אִיהִי! בְּזוֹנָה גּוֹיָה.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: But if that is the meaning of the baraita, why is it necessary to purchase the animal back from the prostitute for it to be subject to animal tithe? Let her tithe it herself, as it is not prohibited as payment to a prostitute, since it was in the womb when he gave it to her. The Gemara answers that the baraita is referring to a gentile prostitute, to whom the mitzva of tithing animals does not apply.

קלאוד על הדף:

If the fetus inside the fee is not itself an etnan, the prostitute could simply keep it and tithe it herself; why does the baraita need the man to buy it back? The Gemara answers that the baraita speaks of a gentile prostitute. A gentile is not obligated in animal tithe, so the animal can enter the pen only once a Jew owns it. This sets up the next question: why did the baraita choose a gentile at all?

Key Terms:

• וְתִיעַשְּׂרֵהּ אִיהִי = let her tithe it herself
• זוֹנָה גּוֹיָה = a gentile prostitute

Segment 2

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Why not set the case with a Jewish prostitute who tithes it herself? Because her fee is not etnan at all

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְלוֹקְמַהּ בְּזוֹנָה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית, וְתִיעַשְּׂרֵהּ אִיהִי! קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּזוֹנָה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית לָא הָוֵי אֶתְנַן.

English Translation:

The Gemara challenges: But let the baraita establish this case, of an animal set aside as payment to a prostitute that nevertheless enters the pen to be tithed, as a case involving a Jewish prostitute, and let it be referring to a case where she tithes it herself. The Gemara explains that this baraita teaches us that an animal given as payment to a Jewish prostitute does not have the halakhic status of payment to a prostitute, and is not prohibited for sacrifice.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks why the baraita did not speak of a Jewish prostitute who tithes the animal herself, with no repurchase. The answer is a surprising rule: an animal given to a Jewish prostitute is not legally an etnan, so it is fit for the altar and there is no novelty in its being tithed. The baraita had to use a gentile prostitute, whose fee is a true etnan, to teach how an etnan can still be tithed.

Key Terms:

• זוֹנָה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית = a Jewish prostitute
• לָא הָוֵי אֶתְנַן = it is not an etnan
• קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן = it teaches us

Segment 3

TYPE: מימרא (אביי)

Abaye: a gentile prostitute’s fee is etnan but a kohen with her is not flogged; for a Jewish prostitute it is the reverse

Hebrew/Aramaic:

כִּדְאַבָּיֵי, דְּאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: זוֹנָה גּוֹיָה — אֶתְנַנָּהּ אָסוּר, וְכֹהֵן הַבָּא עָלֶיהָ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ״. זוֹנָה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית — אֶתְנַנָּהּ מוּתָּר, וְכֹהֵן הַבָּא עָלֶיהָ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ״.

English Translation:

The Gemara adds that this is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, as Abaye says: An animal given to a gentile prostitute is considered to be payment to a prostitute, which is prohibited for sacrifice on the altar. And a priest who engages in intercourse with a gentile prostitute is not flogged due to the prohibition of: “A widow, or one divorced, or a profaned woman, or a prostitute, these shall he not take, but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife. And he shall not profane his seed among his people, for I am the Lord who sanctifies him” (Leviticus 21:14–15). Conversely, an animal given to a Jewish prostitute is not considered payment to a prostitute and it is permitted to sacrifice it. But a priest who engages in intercourse with a Jewish prostitute is flogged due to the prohibition of: “And he shall not profane his seed among his people, for I am the Lord who sanctifies him.”

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara grounds the answer in Abaye’s twofold rule, which treats the two kinds of prostitute as mirror images. For a gentile prostitute, her fee is forbidden as etnan, but a kohen who has relations with her is not flogged for ‘he shall not profane his seed’. For a Jewish prostitute, her fee is permitted for the altar, but a kohen with her is flogged. The next segments give the reason for each half.

Key Terms:

• אַבָּיֵי = Abaye, a leading fourth-generation Babylonian Amora
• אֶתְנַנָּהּ אָסוּר = her fee is forbidden (for the altar)
• לוֹקֶה = is flogged, the punishment for violating a negative commandment
• ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ״ = he shall not profane his seed (Leviticus 21:15)

Segment 4

TYPE: גזירה שוה

Why a gentile prostitute’s fee is etnan: ‘abomination’ is learned from the forbidden relations

Hebrew/Aramaic:

זוֹנָה גּוֹיָה אֶתְנַנָּהּ אָסוּר — גָּמַר ״תּוֹעֵבָה״ ״תּוֹעֵבָה״ מֵעֲרָיוֹת.

English Translation:

The Gemara clarifies Abaye’s opinion. An animal given to a gentile prostitute is considered payment to a prostitute, which is prohibited for sacrifice on the altar, as Abaye derives a verbal analogy from the word “abomination” stated with regard to payment to a prostitute: “You shall not bring the payment of a prostitute, or the price of a dog, into the House of the Lord your God for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19), and the word “abomination” stated in the verses discussing those with whom relations are forbidden: “For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29).

קלאוד על הדף:

The fee of a gentile prostitute is forbidden through a gezera shava. The word to’eva, abomination, appears in the verse on the etnan (Deuteronomy 23:19) and in the passage on forbidden relations (Leviticus 18:29). Linking the two words lets the Gemara define the ‘prostitute’ of the etnan verse by the character of the arayot, as the next segment explains.

Key Terms:

• גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה = a verbal analogy: the same word in two passages links their laws
• תּוֹעֵבָה = abomination
• עֲרָיוֹת = the forbidden sexual relations listed in Leviticus 18

Segment 5

TYPE: המשך הגזירה שוה

As with the arayot, where betrothal cannot take effect, so the etnan verse refers to a woman who cannot be betrothed

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מָה עֲרָיוֹת, דְּלָא תָּפְסִי בְּהוּ קִדּוּשֵׁי — אַף זוֹנָה, בְּהָךְ דְּלָא תָּפְסִי בַּהּ קִדּוּשֵׁי.

English Translation:

The Gemara elaborates: Just as the verses discussing those with whom relations are forbidden are referring specifically to those women upon whom betrothal does not take effect, so too, the prostitute referred to in the verse is one upon whom betrothal does not take effect, i.e., a gentile prostitute.

קלאוד על הדף:

The defining mark of the arayot is that kiddushin does not take effect with them. A Jewish prostitute can be betrothed, so she falls outside the analogy and her fee is not etnan. A gentile cannot be betrothed by a Jew, so she fits the analogy and her fee is forbidden. This explains the surprising rule of 56b: the etnan prohibition depends on the woman’s status, not on the act.

Key Terms:

• קִדּוּשִׁין = betrothal, the first stage of Jewish marriage
• לָא תָּפְסִי בְּהוּ קִדּוּשֵׁי = betrothal does not take effect with them
• זוֹנָה = here, for the etnan verse, a woman with whom betrothal cannot take effect

Segment 6

TYPE: טעם

Why a kohen with a gentile prostitute is not flogged: her child is not ‘his seed’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְכֹהֵן הַבָּא עָלֶיהָ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ״, דְּלֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי לָאו זַרְעֵיהּ הוּא.

English Translation:

Abaye further stated: And a priest who engages in intercourse with her is not flogged due to the prohibition of: “And he shall not profane his seed among his people, for I am the Lord who sanctifies him.” The Gemara explains: The reason is that the Merciful One states that he should not profane his seed, i.e., his children, and any children born from this gentile prostitute are not considered to be his seed, as the children of a gentile mother are gentiles.

קלאוד על הדף:

The second half of Abaye’s rule rests on the wording of Leviticus 21:15. The prohibition is framed as profaning one’s seed, that is, producing a child of lesser priestly status. A child born to a gentile mother is a gentile and is not considered the kohen’s seed at all, so this specific prohibition does not apply. The Gemara does not say the act is permitted, only that this verse does not carry lashes for it.

Key Terms:

• זַרְעוֹ = his seed — his offspring
• רַחֲמָנָא = the Merciful One — a term for God as the Author of the Torah
• לָאו זַרְעֵיהּ הוּא = it is not his seed
• חָלָל = a profaned child of a kohen, who lacks priestly sanctity

Segment 7

TYPE: משנה

Brothers and partners: when they owe the kalbon premium they are exempt from animal tithe, and when they owe tithe they are exempt from the kalbon

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְנִי׳ הָאַחִין וְהַשּׁוּתָּפִין, שֶׁחַיָּיבִין בַּקָּלְבּוֹן — פְּטוּרִין מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, חַיָּיבִין בְּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה — פְּטוּרִין מִן הַקָּלְבּוֹן.

English Translation:

MISHNA: With regard to brothers and partners, i.e., brothers who are partners in the inheritance of their father, when they are obligated to add the premium [bakalbon] to their annual half-shekel payment to the Temple they are exempt from animal tithe. Conversely, those whose halakhic status is like that of sons who are supported by their father and are obligated to separate animal tithe are exempt from adding the premium.

קלאוד על הדף:

The mishna links two unrelated laws through one question: do the brothers count as one owner or as partners? The kalbon is a small surcharge added to the half-shekel, and two partners who pay one shekel for both owe it, as discussed in Mishna Shekalim. A father paying for his sons does not. Animal tithe, as the Gemara will show, applies only to an individual owner, not to partners. So whenever the brothers are partners they owe kalbon and are exempt from tithe; when they count as one estate the reverse is true.

Key Terms:

• קָלְבּוֹן = a premium added to the half-shekel when one coin covers two people
• מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל = the half-shekel each adult man gave yearly for the communal offerings
• הָאַחִין וְהַשּׁוּתָּפִין = brothers and partners
• שׁוּתָּפוּת = partnership, joint ownership

Segment 8

TYPE: משנה (המשך)

If they acquired from the father’s estate they are tithe-obligated; if they divided and re-partnered they owe kalbon and are exempt from tithe

Hebrew/Aramaic:

קָנוּ מִתְּפִיסַת הַבַּיִת — חַיָּיבִין, וְאִם לָאו — פְּטוּרִין. חָלְקוּ, חָזְרוּ וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ — חַיָּיבִין בַּקָּלְבּוֹן וּפְטוּרִין מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה.

English Translation:

The mishna clarifies: If the brothers acquired the animals through inheritance from the property in the possession of their father’s house they are obligated in animal tithe; but if not, they are exempt. How so? If they divided the inheritance between them and then reentered a partnership, they are obligated to add the premium and are exempt from animal tithe.

קלאוד על הדף:

The mishna gives the test. Animals bought with undivided money from the father’s estate, tefisat habayit, are treated as belonging to one estate, so the brothers are obligated in tithe. But if they divided the inheritance and then joined again as partners, the shared flock is an ordinary partnership: kalbon is owed and tithe is not. The deciding factor is whether the estate was ever divided.

Key Terms:

• תְּפִיסַת הַבַּיִת = the holdings of the household — the undivided property of the father’s estate
• חָלְקוּ = they divided
• חָזְרוּ וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ = they then joined again in partnership

Segment 9

TYPE: ברייתא

‘Shall be yours’ excludes partnership from animal tithe; ‘shall be’ includes an undivided inheritance

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״יִהְיֶה לְךָ״ — וְלֹא שֶׁל שׁוּתָּפוּת. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ קָנוּ בִּתְפִיסַת הַבַּיִת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יִהְיֶה״.

English Translation:

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “That you shall set apart for the Lord all that opens the womb; every firstborn male that emerges from an animal that shall be yours belongs to the Lord” (Exodus 13:12). This teaches that the obligation of animal tithe applies only to an animal that belongs to you, i.e., to one owner, but not to an animal owned by partners. One might have thought that the obligation of the tithe does not apply to the animal even if brothers acquired the animals through inheritance from the property in the possession of their father’s house. Therefore, the verse states: “Shall be,” to include animals acquired through inheritance in the obligation of animal tithe.

קלאוד על הדף:

The baraita gives the source. The words ‘shall be yours’ in Exodus 13:12 imply single ownership, so a jointly owned animal is excluded. The word ‘shall be’ then restores animals held in the undivided estate. Undivided heirs are not treated as partners at all; they continue the father’s single ownership. This matches the mishna’s ruling exactly.

Key Terms:

• ״יִהְיֶה לְךָ״ = shall be yours (Exodus 13:12)
• וְלֹא שֶׁל שׁוּתָּפוּת = and not that of a partnership
• תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר = the verse teaches

Segment 10

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

The verse is about firstborns, but firstborns apply to partners (‘your herds’, plural), so it is applied to tithe

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְהַאי בִּבְכוֹר כְּתִיב! אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לִבְכוֹר, דְּהָא אִיתֵיהּ בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְכוֹרוֹת בְּקַרְכֶם וְצֹאנְכֶם״, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: But this verse is not referring to animal tithe; rather, it is written with regard to firstborn animals. The Gemara answers: If it is not needed for the matter of firstborn animals, as the mitzva of sanctifying a firstborn animal does apply in a case of partnership, as it is written, in the plural form: “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), apply the verse to the matter of animal tithe, teaching that it does not apply to an animal owned by partners.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara objects that Exodus 13:12 concerns firstborn animals, not tithe. It answers with im eino inyan again, as on 56a. The exclusion of partners cannot apply to firstborns, because Deuteronomy 12:6 speaks of ‘the firstborn of your herd and of your flock’ in the plural, showing that animals owned jointly are also subject to firstborn sanctity. Since the exclusion has no place there, it is transferred to animal tithe.

Key Terms:

• ״וּבְכוֹרוֹת בְּקַרְכֶם וְצֹאנְכֶם״ = the firstborn of your herd and your flock (Deuteronomy 12:6), in the plural
• תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן = apply it to another matter
• בְּכוֹר בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת = a firstborn of jointly owned animals, which is holy

Segment 11

TYPE: מימרא (ר’ ירמיה)

Rabbi Yirmeya: four combinations — liable for both, exempt from both, kalbon only, or tithe only

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: פְּעָמִים שֶׁחַיָּיבִין בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה, וּפְעָמִים שֶׁפְּטוּרִין מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, פְּעָמִים שֶׁחַיָּיבִין בַּקָּלְבּוֹן וּפְטוּרִין מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, וּפְעָמִים שֶׁחַיָּיבִין בְּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וּפְטוּרִין מִן הַקָּלְבּוֹן.

English Translation:

§ The mishna teaches: If the brothers divided the inheritance between them and then reentered a partnership, they are obligated to add the premium and are exempt from animal tithe. Rabbi Yirmeya says: There are times when they are obligated both in this, the premium, and in that, animal tithe. And there are times when they are exempt both from this and from that. Furthermore, there are times when they are obligated to add the premium and are exempt from animal tithe; and finally, there are times when they are obligated in animal tithe and are exempt from having to add the premium.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Yirmeya expands the mishna. The mishna implied that kalbon and tithe always go in opposite directions. He shows that all four combinations are possible, because the estate has two parts: the money, which bears on the half-shekel, and the animals, which bear on tithe. Each part can be divided or left undivided on its own.

Key Terms:

• רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה = Rabbi Yirmeya, an Amora of Eretz Yisrael, known for probing questions
• פְּעָמִים = sometimes
• בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה = in this and in that — the kalbon and the tithe

Segment 12

TYPE: פירוש

Liable for both: money divided but animals not. Exempt from both: animals divided but money not

Hebrew/Aramaic:

חַיָּיבִין בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה — שֶׁחָלְקוּ בַּכְּסָפִים וְלֹא חָלְקוּ בַּבְּהֵמָה, פְּטוּרִין מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה — שֶׁחָלְקוּ בַּבְּהֵמָה וְלֹא חָלְקוּ בַּכְּסָפִים.

English Translation:

The Gemara elaborates: The guiding principle is that partners are exempt from animal tithe but obligated to pay the premium, whereas in the case of individual ownership one is obligated in the animal tithe but exempt from paying the premium. Therefore, the case where they are obligated both in this, the premium, and in that, animal tithe, is when they divided the money they inherited from their father but did not divide the animals they inherited. The case where they are exempt both from this and from that is when they divided the animals but did not divide the money.

קלאוד על הדף:

The first two cases come from dividing one part of the estate. If the brothers divided the money but left the animals undivided, each pays his shekel from what is now his own, and if two later pay together they are partners who owe kalbon, while the undivided flock is still the father’s single estate and is tithed. If they divided the animals but not the money, the shekel still comes from the undivided estate, like a father paying for his sons, so there is no kalbon. The divided animals are no longer one estate, so there is no tithe.

Key Terms:

• כְּסָפִים = money
• בְּהֵמָה = livestock
• חָלְקוּ בַּכְּסָפִים = they divided the money

Segment 13

TYPE: פירוש

Kalbon but not tithe: they divided both and then re-partnered

Hebrew/Aramaic:

חַיָּיבִין בַּקָּלְבּוֹן וּפְטוּרִין מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה — שֶׁחָלְקוּ בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה.

English Translation:

The case where they are obligated to pay the premium and are exempt from animal tithe is when they divided up both this and that, the money and the animals, from the estate of their deceased father. Afterward they reestablished a partnership and are therefore partners in the normal sense, rather than co-owners of the original inherited estate, and partners are obligated to pay the premium and are exempt from the animal tithe.

קלאוד על הדף:

This is the mishna’s own case. Once both the money and the animals have been divided, any later joint holding is an ordinary partnership between independent owners. Partners owe kalbon on a shared shekel and are exempt from tithe under ‘shall be yours’. The brothers are now like any two people who formed a partnership.

Key Terms:

• חָלְקוּ בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה = they divided both
• שׁוּתָּפִין = partners
• כְּשׁוּתָּפִין בְּעָלְמָא = like ordinary partners

Segment 14

TYPE: פירוש

Tithe but not kalbon: they divided neither

Hebrew/Aramaic:

חַיָּיבִין בְּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וּפְטוּרִין מִן הַקָּלְבּוֹן — שֶׁלֹּא חָלְקוּ בְּזֶה וּבָזֶה.

English Translation:

Finally, the case where they are obligated in the animal tithe and are exempt from paying the premium involves brothers who have not divided this or that, the money and the animals of their father’s estate, between them at all. It is therefore considered as though their father is still the sole owner of the estate and is contributing the shekel for the pair of them. Since the estate is under individual ownership, the animal tithe must be separated from the livestock.

קלאוד על הדף:

The last case is the mishna’s first clause. When nothing has been divided, the estate is still one unit, as if the father still owned it. The shekel paid from it is like a father’s payment for his sons, which carries no kalbon, and the flock is treated as owned by one person, so it is tithed.

Key Terms:

• שֶׁלֹּא חָלְקוּ = who did not divide
• כְּאִילּוּ אֲבִיהֶם קַיָּים = as if their father were still the owner
• פְּטוּרִין מִן הַקָּלְבּוֹן = exempt from the kalbon

Segment 15

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Isn’t this obvious? The novelty is the case of animals divided but money not: dividing animals does not show intent to divide all

Hebrew/Aramaic:

פְּשִׁיטָא! חָלְקוּ בַּבְּהֵמָה וְלֹא חָלְקוּ בַּכְּסָפִים אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: כֵּיוָן דְּחָלְקוּ בַּבְּהֵמָה, גַּלּוֹ דַּעְתַּיְיהוּ דִּלְמִיפְלַג קָיְימִי, וְלִיחַיְּיבוּ בְּקָלְבּוֹן — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious? What is the novelty of Rabbi Yirmeya’s statement? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rabbi Yirmeya to teach the case where they divided the animals but did not divide the money. It might enter your mind to say that since they divided the animals they have thereby revealed their intent to divide the entire estate. Consequently, the estate stands to be divided, and they should be obligated to pay the premium. Therefore, Rabbi Yirmeya teaches us that they are exempt from paying the premium until they have actually divided the money.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks what Rabbi Yirmeya added, since each case follows from the mishna’s logic. It answers that the case of animals divided and money undivided needed saying. One might have argued that dividing the flock shows the brothers intend to split the whole estate, so the money should already be treated as divided and kalbon owed. Rabbi Yirmeya teaches that intent is not enough. Until the money is actually divided, it remains the father’s estate.

Key Terms:

• פְּשִׁיטָא = it is obvious
• גַּלּוֹ דַּעְתַּיְיהוּ = they revealed their intent
• לְמִיפְלַג קָיְימִי = they stand to divide
• אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ = it was necessary for him

Segment 16

TYPE: מימרא (רב ענן)

Rav Anan: re-partnered brothers are exempt from tithe only if they divided kids against goats

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַב עָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁחָלְקוּ גְּדָיִים כְּנֶגֶד תְּיָישִׁים וּתְיָישִׁים כְּנֶגֶד גְּדָיִים.

English Translation:

§ Rav Anan says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where they divided kids for goats and goats for kids, i.e., when the two brothers inherited both kids and goats, but one took all the goats and the other all the kids. Since each originally inherited both goats and kids, this division is tantamount to one brother trading his goats for the other’s kids. When they again become partners, they are considered like strangers who join together. Consequently, they are exempt from the animal tithe.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Anan narrows the mishna. The exemption of brothers who divided and re-partnered applies only when the division was uneven in kind: one brother took the goats and the other the kids. Since each was entitled to half of each type, such a division amounts to a trade, and a trade is a purchase. When they join again they are partners who bought from each other, so they are exempt from tithe.

Key Terms:

• רַב עָנָן = Rav Anan, a Babylonian Amora, student of Shmuel
• גְּדָיִים = kids, young goats
• תְּיָישִׁים = grown he-goats
• כְּנֶגֶד = against, in exchange for

Segment 17

TYPE: המשך (רב ענן)

If each took kids and goats in proportion, each received his own share from the start, and on re-partnering they are tithe-obligated

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲבָל חָלְקוּ גְּדָיִים כְּנֶגֶד גְּדָיִים וּתְיָישִׁים כְּנֶגֶד תְּיָישִׁים — אוֹמֵר זֶה חֶלְקוֹ הַמַּגִּיעוֹ מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה לְכָךְ.

English Translation:

But if they divided kids for kids and goats for goats, so that each takes some of both types, in the normal manner, one can say that this, i.e., the group of animals that each brother takes, is considered his share to which he is entitled from the outset, and no transaction between them has occurred. Consequently, when they reestablish the partnership the estate reverts to its original status as a single entity, and they are therefore obligated to separate animal tithe.

קלאוד על הדף:

If the brothers divided like for like, each taking his proportionate share of kids and of goats, Rav Anan says each one simply received what was his from the beginning. This is the principle of bereira, retroactive clarification: the division only reveals which animals were always each brother’s. No exchange took place, so when they reunite the estate returns to its first status and is tithed.

Key Terms:

• זֶה חֶלְקוֹ הַמַּגִּיעוֹ מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה = this is his share that came to him from the first moment
• בְּרֵירָה = retroactive clarification — a later act reveals what was determined from the start
• יֵשׁ בְּרֵירָה = bereira applies; the division is clarification, not exchange

Segment 18

TYPE: מחלוקת (רב נחמן)

Rav Nachman: even a like-for-like division is not ‘his share from the start’, so re-partnered brothers are exempt

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ חָלְקוּ גְּדָיִים כְּנֶגֶד גְּדָיִים וּתְיָישִׁים כְּנֶגֶד תְּיָישִׁים — אֵין אוֹמְרִים זֶה הוּא חֶלְקוֹ הַמַּגִּיעוֹ מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה לְכָךְ.

English Translation:

And Rav Naḥman says: Even if they divided the estate in the manner of kids for kids and goats for goats, we do not say that this, the group of animals taken by each brother, is considered his share to which he is entitled from the outset. Therefore, if they reestablish a partnership they are considered like partners and are exempt from separating animal tithe.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Nachman disagrees. Even a perfectly even division is not mere clarification. Each brother gives up his half of the other’s animals in return for the other’s half of his, so the division is a mutual purchase. This matches the principle stated on 52b in Rabbi Yochanan’s name: brothers who divide are purchasers. On this view, re-partnered brothers are always ordinary partners and are exempt from tithe.

Key Terms:

• רַב נַחְמָן = Rav Nachman bar Yaakov, a leading Babylonian Amora and authority on civil law
• אֵין אוֹמְרִים = we do not say
• הָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ לָקוֹחוֹת הֵן = brothers who divided are purchasers (52b)

Segment 19

TYPE: מימרא (ר’ אלעזר)

Rabbi Elazar: the exemption applies only when nine grown goats were set against ten kids

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁחָלְקוּ תִּשְׁעָה כְּנֶגֶד עֲשָׂרָה, וַעֲשָׂרָה כְּנֶגֶד תִּשְׁעָה.

English Translation:

The Gemara notes that this matter is also the subject of a dispute between other amora’im. And Rabbi Elazar says: The Sages taught this halakha only when they divided nine large goats for ten kids, and ten kids for nine large ones. Since the nine large goats are worth the same as ten kids, this division is tantamount to one brother trading his large goats for the other’s kids. When they again become partners they are considered as strangers who join together, and therefore they are exempt from the animal tithe.

קלאוד על הדף:

The same dispute appears among the Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael, framed by value rather than by kind. Rabbi Elazar says the mishna’s exemption applies when the division set nine large goats against ten kids of equal total value. One brother gave up animals of one kind for a different number of another, which is a trade. When they rejoin they are partners who bought from each other, and are exempt from tithe.

Key Terms:

• תִּשְׁעָה כְּנֶגֶד עֲשָׂרָה = nine against ten — fewer, more valuable animals against more, cheaper ones
• רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר = Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat, Rabbi Yochanan’s leading student
• שָׁוֶה = equal in value

Segment 20

TYPE: המשך (ר’ אלעזר)

If each took nine large and ten small, each received his own share, and on re-partnering they are tithe-obligated

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲבָל חָלְקוּ תִּשְׁעָה כְּנֶגֶד תִּשְׁעָה וַעֲשָׂרָה כְּנֶגֶד עֲשָׂרָה — אוֹמֵר זֶה חֶלְקוֹ הַמַּגִּיעוֹ מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה לְכָךְ.

English Translation:

But if they divided nine large goats for nine large goats and ten kids for ten kids, so that each takes some of both types, one can say that this, the group of animals taken by each brother, is considered his share to which he is entitled from the outset, and no transaction between them has occurred. Consequently, when they reestablish the partnership the estate reverts to its original status as a single entity, which means they are obligated to separate animal tithe.

קלאוד על הדף:

If each brother took the same mix, nine large goats and ten kids, Rabbi Elazar agrees with Rav Anan that each simply received his own share from the start. The division clarifies ownership and transfers nothing. When the brothers rejoin, the flock is once again their father’s single estate and is subject to tithe.

Key Terms:

• תִּשְׁעָה כְּנֶגֶד תִּשְׁעָה = nine against nine
• עֲשָׂרָה כְּנֶגֶד עֲשָׂרָה = ten against ten
• מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה = from the first moment

Segment 21

TYPE: מחלוקת (ר’ יוחנן)

Rabbi Yochanan: even an identical division is not ‘his share from the start’; re-partnered brothers are exempt

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ חָלְקוּ תִּשְׁעָה כְּנֶגֶד תִּשְׁעָה, וַעֲשָׂרָה כְּנֶגֶד עֲשָׂרָה, אֵין אוֹמֵר זֶה חֶלְקוֹ הַמַּגִּיעוֹ מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה לְכָךְ.

English Translation:

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even if they divided the estate in the manner of nine large goats for nine large goats and ten kids for ten kids, one does not say that this, the group of animals taken by each brother, is considered his share to which he is entitled from the outset. Therefore, if they reestablish a partnership they are considered as partners and are exempt from separating animal tithe.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Yochanan takes the stricter view, parallel to Rav Nachman: no division is mere clarification, so brothers who divided and rejoined are always partners and exempt from tithe. This fits his own ruling on 52b that brothers who divide are purchasers and must return their shares to each other in Yovel. So the daf ends with matching disputes: Rav Anan and Rabbi Elazar hold that an even division only clarifies, while Rav Nachman and Rabbi Yochanan hold that every division is a purchase.

Key Terms:

• רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן = Rabbi Yochanan bar Nappacha, the leading Amora of Eretz Yisrael
• אֵין אוֹמֵר = one does not say
• לָקוֹחוֹת = purchasers
• יוֹבֵל = the Jubilee year, when purchased fields return to their original owners

📝 Summary

Overview

Bechorot 56 lies in Perek 9, מעשר בהמה, the last perek of the masechet. It continues the mishna of 55b, which exempts purchased animals and gifts from animal tithe. Amud aleph completes Rav Kahana’s source for the exemption: Exodus 22:28-29 sets “the firstborn of your sons” beside “so you shall do with your oxen and with your sheep”, and the hekesh teaches that animal tithe, like the redemption of a son, applies only to what is born in one’s own possession. The Gemara then shows why the phrase is assigned to tithe and not to any other offering. It tests the hekesh against Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling that fetuses bought in the womb are tithed, and answers with “at the time of doing”. A baraita on a prostitute’s fee (etnan) that enters the pen leads into Abaye’s mirror-image rule about gentile and Jewish prostitutes. Amud bet then brings a new mishna on brothers and partners, who owe the kalbon premium when they are exempt from tithe and owe tithe when they are exempt from the kalbon. Rabbi Yirmeya maps out four combinations, and the daf closes with two matching Amoraic disputes over whether brothers who divide an estate merely receive their own share or buy from each other.

Amud Aleph Highlights

• Rav Kahana’s hekesh completed: just as the redemption of the firstborn does not apply to a son who was bought or received as a gift, so tithe of the herd and flock does not apply to a purchased or gifted animal.
• Why the verse is about tithe: the phrase “so you shall do” stands in a verse about firstborn animals. A firstborn is holy from the womb and needs no act, so by im eino inyan the word “do” is applied to animal tithe, which is sanctified only when the owner counts the tenth animal.
• Other offerings excluded: the Gemara asks why the phrase should not apply to other offerings that need an act of designation. Each is excluded by a feature it does not share with the son. Sin and guilt offerings come for a sin; burnt and peace offerings can be vowed or donated; the burnt offering of appearance has a fixed time, the pilgrimage Festivals. A son is redeemed for no sin, is never vowed, and has no fixed date. Only animal tithe matches him on all three counts.
• The challenge of purchased fetuses: a full hekesh should exclude every purchased animal, as no purchased son is ever redeemed. Yet Rabbi Asi quotes Rabbi Yochanan: ten fetuses bought in the womb and born in the buyer’s possession all enter the pen to be tithed.
• Rava’s answer: “so you shall do” limits the exclusion to the time of doing, when the animal is fit for the altar. A fetus is not yet fit, so buying it is not buying a tithable animal.
• The ruling examined (gufa): the mishna exempts any purchased animal, with no distinction for fetuses. Rabbi Elazar gives Rava’s answer and adds that he saw Rabbi Yochanan in a dream, a sign that his explanation was right.
• Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim’s objection: a baraita applies the purchase exemption even to an animal under eight days old (mechusar zman), which is also not fit for the altar. Rabbi Elazar replies that the baraita is unreliable. If it is reliable, it follows Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that an underage animal enters the pen like a firstborn, sanctified now and offered after eight days.
• The etnan that is tithed: a tanna taught before Rav that the prostitute’s fee that enters the pen is an animal the man gave her and bought back. The tanna objected that it should then be exempt as a purchased animal. The Gemara answers that he forgot Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling: the animal went to her and came back while still a fetus, before the time of doing.

Amud Bet Highlights

• Why buy it back? A fetus in the womb is not itself etnan, so the prostitute could tithe it herself. The Gemara answers that she is a gentile, and a gentile is not obligated in animal tithe.
• Why not a Jewish prostitute? Because an animal given to a Jewish prostitute is not etnan at all. It is permitted for the altar, so there would be nothing new in its being tithed.
• Abaye’s rule: a gentile prostitute’s fee is forbidden as etnan, but a kohen with her is not flogged for “he shall not profane his seed” (Leviticus 21:15). For a Jewish prostitute it is the reverse: her fee is permitted, but a kohen with her is flogged.
• The reasons: “abomination” in the etnan verse (Deuteronomy 23:19) is linked by gezera shava to “abominations” in the forbidden relations (Leviticus 18:29). The arayot are women with whom betrothal does not take effect, so the etnan verse speaks of such a woman, a gentile. The kohen is not flogged because her child is a gentile and not “his seed”.
• The new mishna: brothers and partners who owe the kalbon are exempt from animal tithe, and those who owe tithe are exempt from the kalbon. Animals acquired from the undivided property of the father’s house (tefisat habayit) are tithed. If the brothers divided and then formed a new partnership, they owe the kalbon and are exempt from tithe.
• The baraita’s source: “that shall be yours” (Exodus 13:12) excludes animals owned in partnership, and “shall be” includes an undivided inheritance. The verse concerns firstborns, but firstborn sanctity applies to partners (“your herd and your flock” in the plural, Deuteronomy 12:6), so the exclusion is applied to tithe.
• Rabbi Yirmeya’s four cases: partners owe kalbon and not tithe; a single owner owes tithe and not kalbon. If the brothers divided the money but not the animals, they owe both. If they divided the animals but not the money, they owe neither. If they divided both and rejoined, they owe kalbon only. If they divided nothing, they owe tithe only, as if their father were still alive.
• The novelty: the case of animals divided and money undivided. One might think the division of the flock shows that they intend to divide everything, so kalbon would be due. Rabbi Yirmeya teaches that until the money is actually divided, there is no kalbon.
• Rav Anan and Rav Nachman: Rav Anan limits the mishna’s exemption to a division of kids against goats, which is a trade. If each brother took kids and goats alike, each simply received his own share from the start, and on rejoining they are obligated in tithe. Rav Nachman says that even then we do not say it was his share from the start, so they are exempt.
• Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan: the same dispute in Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Elazar limits the exemption to nine large goats against ten kids of equal value. If each took nine and ten, each received his own share. Rabbi Yochanan says that even then it is not his share from the start, in line with his view on 52b that brothers who divide are purchasers.

Key Disputes

Conclusions

Animal tithe applies only to animals born in the owner’s possession, by the hekesh to the firstborn son, and only animal tithe fits that hekesh among all the offerings. The exclusion of purchased animals operates at the time of doing, so fetuses bought in the womb are tithed, as Rabbi Yochanan ruled. The baraita on the underage animal is either set aside or assigned to Rabbi Shimon. This ruling explains how an etnan can enter the pen: it was given and bought back as a fetus, from a gentile prostitute. Abaye’s rule stands: only a gentile prostitute’s fee is etnan, and only a Jewish prostitute brings lashes on a kohen. Partners are exempt from animal tithe and undivided heirs are not, and Rabbi Yirmeya shows that kalbon and tithe follow the money and the animals separately. The daf ends without a resolution of the two parallel disputes. Rav Anan and Rabbi Elazar hold that an even division only identifies each brother’s share. Rav Nachman and Rabbi Yochanan hold that every division is a purchase.

Key Figures

Tannaim: Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, the anonymous tanna of the mishna and baraitot

Amoraim: Rav Kahana (from 55b), Rabbi Asi, Rabbi Yochanan, Rava, Rabbi Elazar, Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim, Rav, Abaye, Rabbi Yirmeya, Rav Anan, Rav Nachman

One-Line Takeaway

Animal tithe belongs to what is truly one’s own: an animal born in one’s own pen and held by one owner, so purchase, gift and partnership all remove it, while an undivided inheritance still counts as the father’s single flock.

🎯 ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5)

The Big Picture 🖼️

Today’s daf is about ma’aser behema (מעשר בהמה, the animal tithe). A farmer counts his new lambs and calves one by one, and every tenth animal becomes holy and is brought as an offering. But not every animal goes into the count! Today we learn why bought animals and gifts are left out, why baby animals bought before they were born are still counted, and what happens when brothers share their father’s flock. Along the way there’s a fun little “elimination game” with a verse, a story about a dream, and a big argument about whether splitting things up counts as buying.

Your Son and Your Sheep 👶🐑

Yesterday’s daf (55b) ended with a mishna: if you buy an animal, or someone gives it to you as a gift, it doesn’t go into the tithe count. Only animals born in your own flock count.

Rav Kahana found the source in a verse (Shemot 22:28-29). It says, “The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me,” and right after that, “So you shall do with your oxen and your sheep.”

When the Torah puts two things side by side like that, the Sages learn that they work the same way. This is called a היקש (hekesh, “putting two things together”).

So here’s the lesson:

• A father must redeem his firstborn son from a kohen (פדיון הבן, pidyon haben). But that only applies to his own son, a son born to him. You can’t “buy” a son or get one as a present and then owe pidyon haben!
• In the same way, the animal tithe only applies to your own animals, the ones born in your flock. Not ones you bought, and not ones you got as a gift.

Think of it like… a school rule: “Every tenth drawing you made in art class goes up on the wall.” A drawing your friend gave you, or one you bought at a fair, doesn’t count. Only the ones that came from you!

The Simple Idea 💡: Just like the mitzva of redeeming a firstborn is only for your own son, the animal tithe is only for animals born in your own flock.

The Elimination Game 🎯🔍

But wait! The Gemara asks: that verse is talking about firstborn animals, not the tithe! “So you shall do with your oxen” is about giving the firstborn calf to the kohen.

The answer: a firstborn animal is holy all by itself the moment it’s born (קדוש מרחם, kadosh merechem, “holy from the womb”). Nobody has to do anything to make it holy. So the word “do” doesn’t fit firstborns! When a word doesn’t fit where it is, the Sages move it to another topic. This rule is called אם אינו ענין (im eino inyan, “if it doesn’t belong here, give it to another matter”).

And the tithe is a perfect fit, because a tithe animal only becomes holy when the farmer does something: he counts it out as number ten.

But wait again! Lots of offerings need someone to “do” something to make them holy. Why pick the tithe? Now the Gemara plays a game of elimination. The new topic has to be like the son in the verse. Watch how each candidate gets knocked out:

Think of it like… a game of “Guess Who?” “Is your person wearing a hat?” Flip down the ones with hats. “Glasses?” Flip down more. In the end, only one card is still standing: the animal tithe!

The Simple Idea 💡: The extra word “do” is moved to the animal tithe, because it’s the only offering that’s just like a son in every way.

Babies Bought Before They’re Born 🤰🐄

Now there’s a puzzle. If animals are like a son in every way, then a bought animal should never be tithed, just as a “bought son” never needs redeeming.

But Rabbi Asi says in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: if you buy ten unborn calves (still inside their mothers, called עוברין, ubarin, “fetuses”) and they’re born while you own them, they do go into the tithe count!

How can that be? You bought them!

Rava answers from the very same verse: “So you shall do… on the eighth day you shall give it to Me.” The word “do” tells us when the rule about bought animals matters: at the time an animal can be offered, which is from eight days old. That’s called בשעת עשייה (bish’at asiyah, “at the time of doing”).

An unborn calf can’t be offered on the altar. It can’t be anything yet! So buying it then doesn’t count as buying a tithe animal. Once it’s born in your barn, it’s as if it was born to you.

Think of it like… a garden contest that says, “Only flowers you grew yourself.” If you buy a grown flower at the shop, it doesn’t count. But if you buy a packet of seeds and they bloom in your garden, those flowers count as yours!

The Simple Idea 💡: The “bought animals don’t count” rule only applies to animals bought once they’re old enough to be offered, not ones bought before they were born.

A Dream and a Challenge 💭⚔️

The Gemara now looks at Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling again and asks: doesn’t our mishna say anyone who buys an animal is exempt? Unborn calves are still bought!

Rabbi Elazar, Rabbi Yochanan’s top student, gives the same answer as Rava: “at the time of doing.” And he adds a lovely little detail. He says: “I saw Rabbi Yochanan in a dream!” He took it as a sign that his explanation of his teacher’s words was right.

But Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim isn’t convinced. He brings a baraita (a teaching from the time of the Mishna that isn’t in the Mishna). It says the “bought animals don’t count” rule applies even to an animal under eight days old (מחוסר זמן, mechusar zman, “missing time”). That animal can’t be offered yet either! So shouldn’t an unborn calf be left out too?

Rabbi Elazar gives two answers:

1. “That baraita isn’t reliable.” It’s not an accurate teaching.
2. “Even if it is, it follows Rabbi Shimon.” Rabbi Shimon holds that a baby animal under eight days old does go into the count. It becomes holy right away, but it’s only offered once it’s eight days old, just like a firstborn. So for him, the “time of doing” starts at birth, and buying a newborn is buying a tithe animal. But an unborn calf? Not even Rabbi Shimon counts that!

Think of it like… a team that lets players sign up from the day they’re born, even though they can’t play until they’re older. A newborn on the list is already “on the team.” But a baby who isn’t born yet can’t sign up at all!

The Simple Idea 💡: Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling survives: even the opinion that counts newborns doesn’t count unborn calves.

The Forbidden Payment Puzzle 🧩🚫

Now a baraita is taught in front of Rav. It talks about an אתנן (etnan). That’s an animal given as payment for a forbidden relationship. The Torah says such an animal can never be brought to the Temple (Devarim 23:19).

The baraita asks: which etnan goes into the tithe count? Answer: one that the man gave as payment and then bought back.

But wait! If he bought it back, it’s a bought animal! And bought animals don’t count!

The Gemara’s answer: the person asking forgot Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling (אישתמיטתיה, ishtemitetei, “it slipped his mind”). The baraita is talking about a calf that was still unborn when it was given and when it was bought back. It went over inside its mother and came back inside its mother! And we just learned that unborn calves that are bought do go into the count.

Why buy it back at all? Why doesn’t the woman just tithe it herself? Because the baraita is talking about a woman who isn’t Jewish, and the mitzva of tithing animals only applies to Jews. So the animal can only enter the count once a Jew owns it again.

Think of it like… a puzzle piece you thought was missing. Rabbi Yochanan’s rule about unborn calves turns out to be the exact piece that makes this baraita fit!

The Simple Idea 💡: Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling about unborn calves solves a second puzzle too.

Abaye’s Mirror Rule 🪞🔄

But wait! Why didn’t the baraita just talk about a Jewish woman, who could tithe the animal herself?

The surprising answer: when the payment is given to a Jewish woman, the animal isn’t an etnan at all! It’s allowed on the altar, so there’d be nothing new to teach.

This follows Abaye, who taught a rule that works like a mirror:

Everything that’s “yes” on one side is “no” on the other!

Why is the payment forbidden only with a woman who isn’t Jewish? The Gemara links two verses that both use the word תועבה (to’eva, “abomination”). One is the verse about the etnan. The other is the list of forbidden relationships (Vayikra 18:29). This kind of word-link is called a גזירה שוה (gezera shava, “same word, same law”). In that list, the relationships are ones where Jewish marriage can’t take effect. So the etnan verse is also about a woman with whom Jewish marriage can’t take effect. A Jewish woman can be married that way, so her payment isn’t an etnan.

And the kohen? The verse (Vayikra 21:15) says a kohen must not “profane his seed,” meaning his children. A child of a mother who isn’t Jewish isn’t counted as the kohen’s child in Jewish law, so this verse doesn’t apply. That doesn’t make it allowed! It just means this particular punishment isn’t for this case.

The Simple Idea 💡: Whether a payment is a forbidden etnan depends on whether Jewish marriage could ever take effect between the two people.

Brothers, Partners, and the Little Extra Fee 👬🪙

Now a new mishna! It’s about brothers who inherit their father’s flock, and it ties together two laws that seem to have nothing to do with each other.

Law number 1: the kalbon. Every year, each Jewish man gave a half-shekel to the Temple (מחצית השקל, machatzit hashekel). If two people paid together with one big coin, they had to add a small extra fee called a קלבון (kalbon). But a father paying for his sons didn’t add it.

Law number 2: the animal tithe. It only applies to an animal with one owner, not to animals owned by partners (שותפין, shutafin).

So the mishna says: brothers can never owe both of these from the same setup. If they count as partners, they owe the kalbon but are free from the tithe. If they count as one family estate, it’s the other way around!

The test:

• 🏠 Animals still part of Dad’s estate, never divided? It’s as if Dad still owns everything. Tithe: yes. Kalbon: no.
• ✂️ They divided everything and then went into business together again? Now they’re ordinary partners. Kalbon: yes. Tithe: no.

Think of it like… a family phone plan. While everything is still in Dad’s name, it’s one account. But if the brothers each get their own plan and then decide to share one again, now they’re two separate customers splitting a bill, and that comes with its own extra fee!

The Simple Idea 💡: Brothers who never divided their inheritance count as one owner; brothers who divided and joined again count as partners.

Where Does It Say Partners Don’t Tithe? 📜🤝

A baraita finds it in a verse (Shemot 13:12): “…an animal that shall be yours.”

• “Yours” means one owner, so partners are left out.
• “Shall be” adds back brothers who inherited and haven’t divided yet. They aren’t really partners. They’re still holding Dad’s one estate.

But wait! That verse is about firstborn animals! The answer is our friend from before, im eino inyan. Firstborns do apply to partners, because another verse (Devarim 12:6) says “the firstborn of your herds” in the plural, meaning many owners. So the “only one owner” lesson can’t be about firstborns, and it moves over to the tithe.

The Simple Idea 💡: “Shall be yours” teaches that only a single owner, or an undivided inheritance, has to tithe animals.

Rabbi Yirmeya’s Four Boxes 📦📦📦📦

The mishna made it sound like the kalbon and the tithe always go in opposite directions. Rabbi Yirmeya says: not so fast! All four combinations can happen.

His secret: Dad’s estate has two parts. There’s the money (which matters for the half-shekel and its kalbon) and the animals (which matter for the tithe). The brothers can divide one part and not the other!

Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara says one box needed to be taught: animals divided, money not. You might think: “They split the animals, so clearly they plan to split everything! Let’s treat the money as split too.” Rabbi Yirmeya says no. A plan isn’t enough. Until the money is actually divided, it’s still Dad’s.

Think of it like… two sisters who’ve split up the toys in their shared room but haven’t split the piggy bank yet. Even if they plan to split it next week, right now the piggy bank still belongs to both of them together!

The Simple Idea 💡: The money and the animals are judged separately, and only what has really been divided counts as divided.

Goats and Kids: Is Splitting the Same as Trading? 🐐🐐

Now the last big argument of the daf. When brothers divide their father’s animals, is that just sorting out what was always each one’s? Or is it a trade, like buying from each other?

This matters! If it’s a trade, then when they join again, they’re like strangers who bought from each other, and partners are free from the tithe. If it’s just sorting, then joining again puts them right back into Dad’s one estate, and they must tithe.

Rav Anan says it depends how they divided:

• 🐐 ↔️ 🐑 One brother took all the big goats (תיישים, teyashim), the other took all the young kids (גדיים, gedayim). Each one was entitled to half of each kind, so that’s a trade! Exempt from the tithe.
• 🐐🐑 ↔️ 🐐🐑 Each took some of each kind. Then we say each one simply got his own share from the start. That’s just sorting. Tithe: yes.

Rav Nachman disagrees: even an even split isn’t “his share from the start.” Each brother still gave up his half of the other’s animals in exchange. Every split is a trade, so brothers who join again are always exempt.

The same argument happens in Eretz Yisrael, using numbers:

• Rabbi Elazar says: if one took nine big goats and the other took ten kids of the same value, that’s a trade. But if each took nine big ones and ten little ones, that’s just sorting.
• Rabbi Yochanan says: even when each took exactly nine and ten, it’s still a trade! This fits what he taught on daf 52b: brothers who divide are purchasers (האחין שחלקו לקוחות הן, ha’achin shechalku lekochot hen).

The idea behind “just sorting” is called ברירה (bereira, “it turns out it was always so”). The split only shows us which animals belonged to whom all along.

Think of it like… two kids who inherit a big bag of mixed candy from Grandpa.

• If one takes all the lollipops and the other takes all the chocolate, they’ve clearly swapped: “My half of the chocolate for your half of the lollipops!”
• If each takes half the lollipops and half the chocolate, one kid says, “That’s just my half, it was always mine!” But the other kid says, “No, even then, you gave me your share of my pile and I gave you mine. We traded!”

The Simple Idea 💡: Everyone agrees an uneven split is a trade; Rav Nachman and Rabbi Yochanan say even an even split is a trade.

The Super Simple Summary 🎯

• Only animals born in your own flock go into the animal tithe. Bought animals and gifts don’t, just as pidyon haben is only for your own son.
• Through an “elimination game,” the Gemara shows the animal tithe is the only offering that matches a son in every way: not for sin, not a promise or present, and no fixed time.
• Unborn calves that you buy do count, because the “bought animals” rule only starts once an animal is old enough to be offered (“at the time of doing”). Rabbi Elazar confirmed it after seeing Rabbi Yochanan in a dream.
• That ruling explains a baraita about a forbidden etnan payment that was bought back while still unborn.
• Abaye’s mirror rule: a payment is a forbidden etnan only when Jewish marriage could never take effect between the two people.
• Brothers who never divided their inheritance count as one owner: they tithe and pay no kalbon. Brothers who divided and joined again are partners: they pay kalbon and don’t tithe.
• Rabbi Yirmeya shows all four combinations can happen, because the money and the animals are divided separately, and a plan to divide isn’t the same as dividing.
• Rav Anan and Rabbi Elazar say an even split is just sorting out what was always yours; Rav Nachman and Rabbi Yochanan say every split is a trade, because brothers who divide are purchasers.

⚖️ Halacha

Purchased Animals Are Exempt, but Fetuses Bought in the Womb Are Tithed

Source in Daf: 56a, Segments 1-8 (Rav Kahana’s hekesh: just as a firstborn son is not redeemed if he was bought or given, so animal tithe does not apply to purchased or gifted animals; Rava’s limit, “you shall do”, which confines the exemption to the time the animal is fit for the altar; Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling that ten fetuses bought in the womb all enter the pen) and Segment 12 (the same ruling resolves the baraita about the prostitute’s fee)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 6:12

Hebrew:

הַלּוֹקֵחַ עֲשָׂרָה עֻבָּרִים בִּמְעֵי אִמָּן. כֻּלָּן נִכְנָסִין לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר שֶׁהֲרֵי בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ נוֹלְדוּ:

English:

When a person purchases ten unborn fetuses in their mother’s womb, they all enter the corral for tithing, for they were born in his domain.

Connection: This is Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling, cited twice on 56a (Segments 6 and 8), almost word for word: “he bought ten fetuses in their mothers’ wombs, they all enter the pen to be tithed” (לָקַח עֲשָׂרָה עוּבָּרִים בִּמְעֵי אִמָּן — כּוּלָּן נִכְנָסִין לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר). Sefaria links this halacha to Segment 6. The Rambam adds a short reason, “for they were born in his domain” (שֶׁהֲרֵי בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ נוֹלְדוּ). That reason ties the ruling back to the hekesh of Segment 1. The exemption of a purchased animal comes from the comparison to a firstborn son, whose redemption applies only to a man’s own child. An animal that came into the world while it already belonged to the buyer is, in this sense, “his own” child, and so it is tithed like any animal born in his herd.

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 6:15

Hebrew:

אֵין הַלּוֹקֵחַ פָּטוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִלְקַח אַחַר שֶׁנִּרְאָה לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר. לְפִיכָךְ הַלּוֹקֵחַ טְלָאִים בְּתוֹךְ שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַלֵּידָה כְּשֶׁיַּגִּיעַ זְמַנָּם חַיָּב לְעַשְּׂרָן. שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין מְחֻסָּר זְמַן רָאוּי לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁלָּקַח עֻבָּרִים וְנוֹלְדוּ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ:

English:

A purchaser is not exempt from the obligation to tithe unless he purchased the animals after they were fit to be tithed. Therefore one who purchases lambs in the seven days after their birth, is obligated to tithe them when the time comes. Since an animal that is “lacking in age” is not fit to be tithed, it is as if he purchased a fetus and it was born in his domain.

Connection: Here the Rambam codifies the principle behind Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling, not just the ruling itself. Rava (Segment 7) and Rabbi Elazar, who saw Rabbi Yochanan in a dream (Segment 9), both read “so you shall do” as limiting the exemption to “the time of doing” (בִּשְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּיה), when the animal is fit for the altar. The Rambam turns that into a general rule: “a purchaser is not exempt unless it was bought after it became fit to be tithed” (אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִלְקַח אַחַר שֶׁנִּרְאָה לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר). He then applies it to the very case Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim raised against Rabbi Elazar, a lamb bought in its first seven days. The baraita said such a lamb is exempt as a purchase. The Rambam rules that it must be tithed, and gives Rabbi Elazar’s reasoning: a lamb too young to be tithed “is like one who bought fetuses and they were born in his domain”. So the halacha follows Rabbi Elazar’s first answer, that the baraita is not reliable: “this is not a mishna” (זוֹ אֵינָהּ מִשְׁנָה), and treats the week-old lamb exactly like the fetus.

An Animal “Lacking in Time”: Rabbi Shimon’s View Is Not Followed

Source in Daf: 56a, Segments 9-10 (Rabbi Elazar’s second answer: if the baraita is reliable, it follows Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that an animal lacking in time enters the pen and, like a firstborn, is sanctified before its time and offered after its time)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 6:14

Hebrew:

הַכֹּל נִכְנָסִין לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר. בֵּין תְּמִימִים בֵּין בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין. וְכָל אִסּוּרֵי מִזְבֵּחַ. חוּץ מִן הַכִּלְאַיִם. וְהַטְּרֵפָה. וְיוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן. וּמְחֻסָּר זְמַן. שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. וְכֵן הַיָּתוֹם שֶׁמֵּתָה אִמּוֹ אוֹ נִשְׁחֲטָה עִם לֵידָתוֹ אֵינוֹ מִתְעַשֵּׂר. וּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה הֵם:

English:

All the animals in one’s herd are brought into the corral for tithing, whether they are unblemished or blemished, even those which are forbidden to be offered on the altar with the exception of hybrids, animals that are tereifah, born through Caesarian section, or “lacking in age.” For all of these are exempt from the tithes. Similarly, an animal whose mother died or was slaughtered when it was born should not be tithed. These concepts are part of the Oral Tradition.

Connection: This halacha settles two threads of our daf at once. First, it lists the animal “lacking in time” (מְחֻסָּר זְמַן) among the animals that are exempt and do not enter the pen. That is the opposite of Rabbi Shimon’s view in Segment 10, that such an animal “enters the pen to be tithed” and is sanctified before its time like a firstborn. The Rambam does not follow Rabbi Shimon. That fits his ruling in 6:15 above: since a week-old lamb cannot be tithed at all, buying it is like buying a fetus.

Second, the halacha says that “all animals forbidden for the altar” (וְכָל אִסּוּרֵי מִזְבֵּחַ) do enter the pen. That is the premise of the baraita taught before Rav in Segment 11, which asks “which etnan enters the pen to be tithed?”. An animal given to a prostitute is forbidden for the altar, yet it is still counted in the pen. The baraita’s only difficulty was that the man had bought it back, and Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling on fetuses (6:12 above) solves that.

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 3:10

Hebrew:

הַמַּקְדִּישׁ טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס וּטְרֵפָה וְכִלְאַיִם וְיוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן לַמִּזְבֵּחַ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמַקְדִּישׁ עֵצִים וַאֲבָנִים. לְפִי שֶׁאֵין קְדֻשָּׁה חָלָה עַל גּוּפָן וַהֲרֵי הֵן חֻלִּין לְכָל דָּבָר. וְיִמָּכְרוּ וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶם כָּל קָרְבָּן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. וְאֵינָן כְּבַעַל מוּם שֶׁבַּעַל מוּם יֵשׁ בְּמִינוֹ קָרְבָּן. אֲבָל הַמַּקְדִּישׁ רוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע וּמֻקְצֶה וְנֶעֱבָד וְאֶתְנָן וּמְחִיר הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמַקְדִּישׁ בַּעַל מוּם עוֹבֵר. וְיִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם קָבוּעַ וְיִפָּדוּ עָלָיו. וְכֵן הַמַּקְדִּישׁ מְחֻסַּר זְמַן הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמַקְדִּישׁ בַּעַל מוּם עוֹבֵר וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

English:

One who consecrates an animal which is a tumtum, androgynus, tereifah, a hybrid, or born through Caesarian section to the altar is like one who consecrated stones or wood, for the holiness does not take effect with regard to its physical substance. It is considered as ordinary property in all contexts. It should be sold and the proceeds of the sale used to purchase any sacrifice one desires. It is not considered like a blemished animal, for a sacrifice may be brought from the species of a blemished animal. When, by contrast, one consecrates an animal that had relations with a person, which was sodomized, which was set aside for pagan worship, which was worshipped, which was given to a harlot, or which was exchanged for a dog, it is considered as if he consecrated an animal with a temporary blemish. They should be left to pasture until they contract a permanent blemish for which they could be redeemed. Similarly, one who consecrates an animal that is lacking in age is considered as one who consecrates an animal with a temporary blemish. Nevertheless, he is not liable for lashes, as we explained.

Connection: Sefaria links this halacha to Segment 10. It shows where the comparison to a firstborn does hold. A man who consecrates an animal “lacking in time” by his own word does create holiness: the animal is like one with a passing blemish (כְּמַקְדִּישׁ בַּעַל מוּם עוֹבֵר), consecrated now and fit later. That is the pattern Rabbi Shimon describes for the firstborn, “sanctified before its time and offered after its time”. The Rambam accepts that pattern for a direct act of consecration. For tithe, though, he rules in 6:14 that the young animal does not even enter the pen. The same halacha also lists etnan (אֶתְנָן) among the animals that may be consecrated but not offered, which is the status of the prostitute’s fee discussed in the rest of the daf.

Etnan: Whose Fee Is Forbidden for the Altar

Source in Daf: 56a, Segments 11-12 and 56b, Segments 1-5 (the etnan bought back as a fetus; the baraita speaks of a gentile prostitute, who does not tithe; a Jewish prostitute’s fee is not etnan at all; Abaye: a gentile prostitute’s fee is etnan, learned by a gezeira shava “abomination”/“abomination” from the forbidden relations, where betrothal does not take effect)

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 4:8

Hebrew:

כָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שֵׁם לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה לִמְלֶאכֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. אֵי זֶהוּ (דברים כג-יט) “אֶתְנָן” הָאוֹמֵר לְזוֹנָה הֵא לִיךְ דָּבָר זֶה בִּשְׂכָרֵךְ. אֶחָד זוֹנָה כּוּתִית אוֹ שִׁפְחָה אוֹ יִשְׂרְאֵלִית שֶׁהִיא עֶרְוָה עָלָיו אוֹ מֵחַיָּבֵי לָאוִין. אֲבָל הַפְּנוּיָה אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה כֹּהֵן אֶתְנָנָהּ מֻתָּר. וְכֵן אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה אֶתְנָנָהּ מֻתָּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא עֶרְוָה:

English:

Anything that is connected with the name of a false deity should not be employed in the service of the Sanctuary even though it is permitted to benefit from it. What is meant by a present given to a harlot? When one tells a harlot, “This entity is given to you as your wages.” This applies to a gentile harlot, a maidservant, a Jewish woman who is forbidden to the man as an ervah or by a negative commandment. If, however, a woman is unmarried, the present given to her may be used [as a sacrifice] even if the man is a priest. Similarly, if a person’s wife is a niddah, a present given to her may be used [as a sacrifice] even though she is an ervah.

Connection: Sefaria links this halacha to Abaye’s statement (56b, Segment 3). The first half of Abaye’s rule appears here plainly: the fee of a gentile prostitute (זוֹנָה כּוּתִית) is etnan, and the fee of an unmarried Jewish woman (הַפְּנוּיָה) is permitted. That is the case the Gemara means in Segment 2, when it says a fee given to a Jewish prostitute “does not have the status of etnan”.

The Rambam’s list matches the reason behind Abaye’s gezeira shava (Segments 4-5). “Abomination” in Devarim 23:19 is compared to “abominations” in Vayikra 18:29, so etnan is a fee paid to a woman with whom betrothal cannot take effect. A gentile woman and a maidservant fit that definition, and so does a Jewish woman who is an ervah to him. An unmarried Jewish woman does not, since he could marry her. The Rambam’s last example proves that the test is betrothal, not sin. A man’s own wife while she is a niddah is an ervah, yet the gift is permitted, because the marriage is fully valid. The Rambam’s list also includes women forbidden by a negative commandment. That goes beyond the two cases Abaye mentions here.

Note also the phrase “even if he was a kohen” (אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה כֹּהֵן). Abaye paired the two questions: whether the fee is etnan, and whether a kohen is flogged. The Rambam answers the first for the unmarried Jewish woman, and the kohen does not change it. The kohen’s lashes are treated in the next section.

A Kohen and a Gentile Woman: The Rambam Does Not Follow Abaye

Source in Daf: 56b, Segments 3 and 6 (Abaye: a kohen who has relations with a gentile prostitute is not flogged under “he shall not profane his seed”, since her child is not his seed; with a Jewish prostitute he is flogged)

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Biah 12:3

Hebrew:

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה הַבּוֹעֵל יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֲבָל כֹּהֵן הַבָּא עַל הַכּוּתִית לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה. וְאֶחָד זוֹנָה כּוּתִית וְאֶחָד זוֹנָה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית. וּבִבְעִילָה בִּלְבַד לוֹקֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ בַּת קִדּוּשִׁין:

English:

When does the above apply? When the man who engaged in relations was an Israelite. If, however, a priest engages in relations with a gentile woman, he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, because of the prohibition against relations with a zonah. [This prohibition applies] both to a non-Jewish zonah and a Jewish one. He receives lashes for relations alone, for he cannot consecrate her.

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Biah 17:6

Hebrew:

כָּל כֹּהֵן הַבָּא עַל הַכּוּתִית בֵּין גָּדוֹל בֵּין הֶדְיוֹט לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ בַּת קִדּוּשִׁין וְהוּא אָסוּר בִּבְעִילַת זוֹנָה בֵּין יִשְׂרְאֵלִית בֵּין כּוּתִית:

English:

Any priest - whether a High Priest or an ordinary priest - who enters into relations with a gentile woman receives lashes for relations with a zonah. [There is a difference between her and a Jewish woman,] because she cannot be consecrated. He is forbidden to enter into relations with any zonah, whether a Jewess or a gentile.

Connection: Sefaria links both halachot to Abaye’s statement, but on the kohen the Rambam rules the other way. Abaye said a kohen with a gentile woman “is not flogged”, because the verse he cited, “he shall not profane his seed”, does not apply when the child is not his seed. The Rambam rules that he is flogged by Torah law. The prohibition is not “he shall not profane”, but the separate prohibition of a zonah: “they shall not take a woman who is a zonah” (Vayikra 21:7).

His reason is the same idea that drives Abaye’s gezeira shava: she “cannot be betrothed” (אֵינָהּ בַּת קִדּוּשִׁין). For a Jewish zonah, the Rambam rules in 17:2 that lashes for “zonah” require marriage, since the verse says “they shall not take”. A gentile woman can never be “taken” in marriage, so the act itself is the prohibited taking: “he is flogged for relations alone” (וּבִבְעִילָה בִּלְבַד לוֹקֶה). The Maggid Mishneh, commenting on 17:6, gives the source as the Gemara in Temurah (בְּתְמוּרָה), not our sugya. In the Rambam’s scheme, the “he shall not profane” lashes are reserved for a High Priest with a widow (17:3).

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Biah 18:2

Hebrew:

וְכֵן הַבָּא עַל הַפְּנוּיָה אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה קְדֵשָׁה שֶׁהִפְקִירָה עַצְמָהּ לַכּל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא בְּמַלְקוֹת לֹא נַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה וְלֹא נִפְסְלָה מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה לְהִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ. אֲבָל הַנִּבְעֶלֶת לְאֶחָד מֵאִסּוּרֵי לָאוִין הַשָּׁוִין בַּכּל וְאֵין מְיֻחָדִין בְּכֹהֲנִים. אוֹ מֵאִסּוּרֵי עֲשֵׂה. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לְמִי שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לוֹ מִשּׁוּם עֶרְוָה אוֹ לְעַכּוּ”ם וְעֶבֶד. הוֹאִיל וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה לְהִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ זוֹנָה:

English:

Whenever a person has relations with an unmarried woman, even if she is a harlot who wantonly makes herself available to everyone, although she is liable for lashes, she is not deemed as a zonah, nor is she disqualified from [marrying] into the priesthood. For she is not forbidden to marry [the people with whom she engaged in relations]. [When, by contrast, a woman] engages in relations with a man with whom relations are forbidden by a negative commandment that is universally applicable - the transgression is not specific to priests - or with whom they are forbidden by a positive commandment, she is forbidden to marry him, she is a zonah. Needless to say, [this applies if she engages in relations with a man] who is forbidden to her as an ervah, a gentile, or a servant.

Connection: This halacha explains who the “Jewish prostitute” of Abaye’s statement is in halachic terms. An unmarried woman who “makes herself available to all” is a prostitute in the everyday sense, but she is not a zonah under Torah law. She does not become a zonah and is not barred from marrying a kohen. That is why her fee is not etnan (Issurei Mizbeach 4:8 above). The test is again the one at the heart of our sugya: is she forbidden to marry the man? So Abaye’s other clause, that a kohen with a Jewish prostitute is flogged under “he shall not profane his seed”, has no counterpart in the Rambam’s rulings on the zonah.

Shulchan Aruch — Even HaEzer 16:1

Hebrew:

ישראל שבעל כותית דרך אישות או ישראלית שנבעלה לכותי (דרך אישות) הרי אלו לוקין מן התורה שנאמר לא תתחתן בם (ויש חולקין בזה) (טור) אבל הבא על הכותית דרך זנות במקרה חייב עליה מדרבנן משום כותית ומשום זונה ומכין אותו מכת מרדות ואם ייחדה לו בזנות חייב עליה מדרבנן משום נדה שפחה כותית זונה ואם היה כהן אפי’ בא עליה דרך מקרה לוקה עליה מן התורה משום זונה:

English:

If a Jew engages in sexual relations with a female idolater, derech ishut (that is, for the purpose of marriage), or a Jewess engages in sexual relations with a male idolater, that Jew or Jewess is given lashes on a Biblical level. As it is written (Deuteronomy 7:3): “You shall not marry them.” (There are those who disagree with this ruling). However, if he engages in sexual relations derech zenut (that is, for licentiousness), casually, he is culpable only on a Rabbinic level for idolatry and for engaging in relations with a prostitute and he is given makat mardut (that is, lashes on a Rabbinic level). And, if he sets her aside for licentious activity, he is culpable on a Rabbinic level for having sexual relations with a nida (that is, menstruant), having sexual relations with a shifcha, (that is, slavewoman), idolatry, and having sexual relations with a prostitute. And, if he is a Kohen (that is, a priest), even if he engages in sexual relations casually, he receives lashes on a Biblical level, as it is written (Leviticus 21:7) [“(A kohen) may not marry a prostitute…”]

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch follows the Rambam in its last clause: “if he is a kohen, even if he had relations with her casually, he is flogged by Torah law because of zonah” (ואם היה כהן… לוקה עליה מן התורה משום זונה). So the practical halacha, which applies today as much as in Temple times, does not follow Abaye’s statement here that the kohen “is not flogged”. For an ordinary Jew, the Shulchan Aruch distinguishes a relationship “by way of marriage”, which it treats as a Torah prohibition (and notes a dissenting view), from casual relations, which carry rabbinic penalties.

Shulchan Aruch — Even HaEzer 6:8

Hebrew:

איזהו היא זונה כל שאינה בת ישראל או בת ישראל שנבעלת לאדם שהיא אסורה לינשא לו איסור השוה לכל או שנבעלה לחלל אף על פי שהיא מותרת לינשא לו לפיכך הנרבעת לבהמה אע”פ שהיא בסקילה לא נעשית זונה ולא נפסלה לכהונה שהרי לא נבעלה לאדם הבא על הנדה אע”פ שהיא בכרת לא נעשית זונה ולא נפסלה לכהונה שהרי אינה אסורה לינשא לו וכן הבא על הפנויה אפי’ היתה קדשה שהפקירה עצמה שהיא במלקות לא נעשית זונה ולא נפסלה מהכהונה שהרי אינה אסורה לינשא לו אבל הנבעלת לאחד מאיסורי לאוין השוין בכל ואינה מיוחדת בכהנים או מאיסורי עשה וא”צ לומר למי שהיא אסורה לו משום ערוה או לכותי ועבד הואיל והיא אסורה לינשא לו הרי זו זונה וכן הגיורת והמשוחררת אפילו נתגיירה ונשתחררה פחות מבת ג’ שנים הואיל ואינה בת ישראל הרי זו זונה ואסורה לכהן וכן יבמה שבא עליה זר עשאה זונה וי”א שהבא על חייבי עשה או על חייבי לאוין אפי’ חייבי לאוין דשאר לא עשאה זונה חוץ מהבא על היבמה:

English:

Who is deemed a “zonah” [who is forbidden to a kohen]? Whoever is not a Jewess, or who is a Jewess that had sexual relations with a man to whom she is forbidden to marry in a generally applicable prohibition, or who had sexual relations with a “cholol” (the child of a kohen and a woman who was forbidden to the kohen), even though she is permitted to be married to this man. Accordingly, a woman who committed bestiality, even though she [is punished] with stoning, she does not become a zonah and she does not become invalid to a kohen, because she did not have sexual relations with a human. And a man that has relations with a menstruating woman, even though she is punished with kareth, she does not become a zonah and she does not become invalid to a kohen, because she is not forbidden to him. And similarly a man that has relations with a single woman, even though she is a lewd woman that made herself freely available, which is punishable with lashes, she does not become a zonah and she does not become invalid to a kohen, because she is not forbidden to him. However, a woman who had sexual relations with someone who is forbidden by a Biblical negative commandment, which are generally prohibited and are not uniquely [forbidden] to kohanim, or with someone who is forbidden by a Biblical affirmative commandment—and it need not even be said with someone who is forbidden by virtue of a forbidden incestual relationship—or with a non-Jew or slave, since she is forbidden to this person to marry, she is deemed a zonah. And so with a convert and a freed slave, even if she converted or was freed while she was less than three years old, since she was not a Jewess, she is deemed a zonah and is forbidden to a kohen. And so a woman who is subject to yibum (levirate marriage) with whom an unrelated person had relations, she becomes a zona. Some opinions say that one who has relations with one who is forbidden by a Biblical affirmative commandment or by a Biblical negative commandment—even the other negative commandments—she does not become a zonah except for instance in which one has relations with a woman subject to yibum.

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch takes over the Rambam’s definition of zonah (Issurei Biah 18:1-2) almost word for word. The first category, “whoever is not a Jewess” (כל שאינה בת ישראל), is the gentile woman of Abaye’s statement. The unmarried “lewd woman” (קדשה שהפקירה עצמה) is the Jewish prostitute whose fee our Gemara says is not etnan. The test running through the whole se’if is “since she is forbidden to marry him” (הואיל והיא אסורה לינשא לו). That is the betrothal test of Abaye’s gezeira shava in a new setting: etnan, like zonah, is defined by a bond that cannot take effect.

Firstborn Animals Apply to Partners; Tithe Does Not

Source in Daf: 56b, Segments 9-10 (the baraita on Exodus 13:12, “that shall be yours”, excludes partners from tithe and includes heirs; the verse speaks of firstborns, but firstborns apply to partners, as Devarim 12:6 says “the firstborn of your herd and of your flock” in the plural, so the exclusion is applied to tithe)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 4:1

Hebrew:

בֶהֱמַת הַשֻּׁתָּפִין חַיֶּבֶת בִּבְכוֹרָה. לֹא נֶאֱמַר (דברים יב יז) (דברים יד כג) “בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנֶךָ” אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט שֻׁתָּפוּת הַנָּכְרִי שֶׁאִם הָיָה שֻׁתָּף בַּפָּרָה אוֹ בָּעֻבָּר אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה לַנָּכְרִי אֶחָד מֵאֶלֶף בָּאֵם אוֹ בַּוָּלָד הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה. הָיָה לוֹ בְּאֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם אֵיבָר אֶחָד כְּגוֹן יָד אוֹ רֶגֶל. רוֹאִין כָּל שֶׁאִלּוּ יֵחָתֵךְ וְהָיָה בַּעַל מוּם הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. וְאִם אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיֵּחָתֵךְ אֵיבַר הַנָּכְרִי וְלֹא יִפָּסֵל. הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב בִּבְכוֹרָה:

English:

There is an obligation to apply the laws of a firstborn to an animal owned by partners. The terms “your cattle and your sheep” was used only to exclude an animal owned in partnership with a gentile. For if a gentile was a partner in the ownership of a cow or of the fetus it is carrying - even if the gentile owns only a thousandth share of the mother or the offspring, it is exempt from the requirements pertaining to the firstborn. If the gentile owned one specific limb of one of them, e.g., a forefoot or a hindfoot, any limb which if cut off that limb would render the animal as blemished, exempts it. If the limb owned by the gentile could be cut off without disqualifying the animal as a firstborn, it is obligated in the laws of the firstborn.

Connection: Sefaria links this halacha to Segment 10. The opening words, “an animal of partners is obligated in the firstborn laws” (בֶהֱמַת הַשֻּׁתָּפִין חַיֶּבֶת בִּבְכוֹרָה), are the premise of the Gemara’s answer. Because firstborn sanctity applies to partners, the word “yours” in Exodus 13:12 is “not needed for firstborns”. It is therefore transferred to tithe, which partners are exempt from. The Rambam then gives the singular “your cattle and your sheep” (בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנֶךָ) its own job for firstborns: it excludes an animal owned in partnership with a gentile, even one part in a thousand.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 320:2

Hebrew:

בהמת השותפין חייבת בבכורה:

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

An animal owned by partners is obligated in the laws of the firstborn.

Connection: The firstborn of a kosher animal is still holy today and may not be shorn or worked. So the Shulchan Aruch records the rule that our Gemara takes as given in Segment 10. Animal tithe, by contrast, has no section in the Shulchan Aruch at all. The Rambam rules (Bechorot 6:2) that the Sages forbade separating it once the Temple was destroyed, lest the consecrated animal be eaten unblemished. The rules that follow are Temple-era laws: these Temple-era laws are preserved in Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt.

Brothers and Partners: When the Herd Is Tithed

Source in Daf: 56b, Segments 7-8 (the mishna: brothers who are partners are exempt from tithe when they owe the kalbon, and owe tithe when they are exempt from the kalbon; if they acquired from the father’s estate they are obligated, and if they divided and re-partnered they are exempt) and Segments 11-15 (Rabbi Yirmeya’s four cases, and the novelty of the case where the animals were divided but the money was not)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 6:10

Hebrew:

הַלּוֹקֵחַ טְלָאִים שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בְּשָׁנָה זוֹ אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְּנוּ לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה הֲרֵי הֵם פְּטוּרִים מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר עַד שֶׁיִּוָּלְדוּ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ הַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בִּבְהֵמוֹת וְהֵבִיא זֶה מֵאָה טְלָאִים וְזֶה מֵאָה טְלָאִים וְעֵרְבוּם וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בָּהֶן הֲרֵי הַמָּאתַיִם פְּטוּרִים מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר שֶׁכָּל טָלֶה מֵהֶן כְּמָכוּר. וְכֵן הָאַחִים שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ טְלָאִים מֵאֲבִיהֶם הֲרֵי הֵן פְּטוּרִין מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. אֲבָל הַנּוֹלָדִים לָהֶם בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת לְאַחַר מִכָּאן מֵאֵלּוּ הַבְּהֵמוֹת בֵּין לַשֻּׁתָּפִין בֵּין לָאַחִים חַיָּבִין בְּמַעֲשֵׂר. וְכֵן אִם הָיוּ שֻׁתָּפִין בְּמָעוֹת וְקָנוּ בְּהֵמוֹת מִמְּעוֹת הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת וְהָאַחִים שֶׁקָּנוּ בְּהֵמוֹת מִמְּעוֹת הַיְרֻשָּׁה הֲרֵי הַנּוֹלָדִים מֵהֶם לְאַחַר מִכָּאן חַיָּבִין בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁהֲרֵי בִּרְשׁוּתָן נוֹלְדוּ וַהֲרֵי הֵן כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד. חָלְקוּ הָאַחִים וְהַשֻּׁתָּפִין אַחַר שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ לָהֶן הַבְּהֵמוֹת בִּרְשׁוּתָן וְחָזְרוּ וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁחָלְקוּ נַעֲשׂוּ הַכֹּל לְקוּחִין וְהַלָּקוּחַ פָּטוּר וּכְשֶׁחָזְרוּ וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ הֲרֵי נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בַּבְּהֵמוֹת וַעֲדַיִן לֹא יָלְדוּ לָהֶן בִּרְשׁוּתָן אַחַר שִׁתּוּף זֶה הַשֵּׁנִי. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָלְקוּ גְּדָיִים כְּנֶגֶד גְּדָיִים וּטְלָאִים כְּנֶגֶד טְלָאִים וַעֲשָׂרָה כְּנֶגֶד עֲשָׂרָה הַכֹּל פְּטוּרִין מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר וַהֲרֵי הֵן כִּלְקוּחִין:

English:

When a person purchases lambs that were born this year or they were given to him as a present, he is not obligated to tithe them. The obligation applies only when the animals are born in his domain. Accordingly, if partners enter into a partnership with regard to animals: one brings 100 and the other brings 100 and they have them intermingle and own them jointly, these 200 are exempt from the requirement to tithe. The rationale is that each of the lambs is considered as having been sold. Similarly, if brothers inherit lambs in their first year of life from their father, they are exempt from the requirement to tithe. The offspring born to the partners or the brothers after the partnership was established, by contrast, from their jointly owned animals are obligated to be tithed. Similarly, if a partnership was established with money or brothers purchased animals from the funds of the estate, the offspring born afterwards are obligated to be tithed, for they were born in their domain and they are considered as one person. If the brothers and the partners divided their property after animals were born to them in their joint domain and then reestablished their partnership, the animals born previously are exempt from the requirement to tithe. The rationale is that when the assets of the partnership or the estate were divided, everything is considered as having been sold and animals that are sold are exempt. And when the partnership was reestablished, no new offspring was born to them afterwards. Even though they divided kids for kids and lambs for lambs, and even if they divided them by tens, they are all exempt from the tithes and considered as having been purchased.

Connection: Sefaria links this halacha to the mishna (Segment 7), to Rabbi Yirmeya’s cases, and to Rav Anan’s dispute (Segment 17). It opens with the rule of the mishna on 55b, that purchased and gifted animals are exempt, and builds everything on that one idea.

The Rambam reads the whole sugya in terms of “purchase”. Animals that two partners pool are exempt because “each lamb is as if sold” (שֶׁכָּל טָלֶה מֵהֶן כְּמָכוּר). Animals that brothers inherit were not born in their domain. The mishna’s case, brothers “who acquired from the property of their father’s house” and owe tithe, is read as animals bought with estate money, whose young are born in the brothers’ joint domain. Then they “are like one person” (כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד). Rabbi Steinsaltz’s commentary on this halacha explains that young born in the partnership are obligated “even though they are partners”, and cites the Rambam’s own Commentary on the Mishna (Bechorot 9:3). The mishna’s last case follows: brothers who divided and then re-partnered are exempt, because the division made everything “purchased” (נַעֲשׂוּ הַכֹּל לְקוּחִין), and no new young have yet been born in the second partnership.

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 6:11

Hebrew:

הָאַחִין וְהַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ בִּכְסָפִים וְלֹא חָלְקוּ בִּבְהֵמָה חַיָּבִין בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נַעֲשׂוּ הַבְּהֵמוֹת לְקוּחִין. אֲבָל אִם חָלְקוּ הַבְּהֵמוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא חָלְקוּ הַכְּסָפִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין:

English:

When brothers and partners divided the financial assets of the partnership, but did not divide the animals, the animals are obligated to be tithed, for they are not considered as having been purchased yet. If, however, the animals of the partnership were divided even though the financial assets were not, the offspring are exempt.

Connection: These are Rabbi Yirmeya’s two middle cases (Segment 12), seen from the side of tithe. “They divided the money but not the animals”: tithe applies, because the animals have not yet been “purchased” through division. “They divided the animals but not the money”: tithe does not apply. In the Gemara, the first case is obligated in both tithe and kalbon, and the second is exempt from both. The kalbon half of each case is in Hilchot Shekalim, below.

The Kalbon: Brothers, Partners and the Half-Shekel Premium

Source in Daf: 56b, Segments 7-8 (brothers and partners who owe the kalbon are exempt from tithe, and vice versa; divided and re-partnered, they owe the kalbon) and Segments 11-15 (Rabbi Yirmeya’s four cases; the novelty: dividing the animals does not show that the estate “stands to be divided”)

Rambam — Hilchot Shekalim 3:1

Hebrew:

חֲצָיֵי הַשְּׁקָלִים הַכּל צְרִיכִין לָהֶן כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתֵּן כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד חֲצִי שֶׁקֶל שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב. לְפִיכָךְ כְּשֶׁהָיָה אָדָם הוֹלֵךְ אֵצֶל הַשֻּׁלְחָנִי וּמְצָרֵף שֶׁקֶל בִּשְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין יִתֵּן לוֹ תּוֹסֶפֶת עַל הַשֶּׁקֶל. וְאוֹתָהּ הַתּוֹסֶפֶת נִקְרֵאת קַלְבּוֹן. לְפִיכָךְ שְׁנַיִם שֶׁנָּתְנוּ שֶׁקֶל עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם חַיָּבִין בְּקַלְבּוֹן:

English:

Coins of a half-shekel were required by everyone so that each individual could give the half-shekel he was obligated to give. Therefore, when a person went to a money-changer to exchange a shekel for two half-shekalim, he would give the money changer an extra amount in addition to the shekel. This extra amount is referred to as a kolbon. Therefore, when two individuals give a shekel [to discharge the obligation incumbent] upon both of them, they are obligated to give a kolbon.

Connection: This explains the term the mishna uses (Segment 7). The kalbon is the small premium paid when one full shekel is split into two half-shekels. So two people who pay one shekel “for both of them” owe it, since the shekel must be divided between two separate obligations. That is why the kalbon marks the opposite of tithe. Two people who are still one economic unit pay one shekel with no change needed, and their herd counts as one owner’s herd. Two people who are truly separate owe the kalbon, and their herd, as a partnership, is exempt from tithe.

Rambam — Hilchot Shekalim 3:4

Hebrew:

הָאַחִין שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא חָלְקוּ מַה שֶּׁהִנִּיחַ לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם. וְכֵן הַשֻּׁתָּפִים שֶׁנָּתְנוּ שֶׁקֶל עַל יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּטוּרִין מִן הַקַּלְבּוֹן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֻׁתָּפִין שֶׁנָּשְׂאוּ וְנָתְנוּ בִּמְעוֹת הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת וְנִשְׁתַּנָּה עֵין הַמָּעוֹת. אֲבָל אִם הֵבִיא זֶה מְעוֹתָיו וְזֶה מְעוֹתָיו וְעֵרְבוּם וַעֲדַיִן לֹא נִשְׁתַּנּוּ הַמָּעוֹת וְלֹא הוֹצִיאוּם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין בְּקַלְבּוֹן. נָשְׂאוּ וְנָתְנוּ וְאַחַר זְמַן חָלְקוּ וְחָזְרוּ וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ חַיָּבִין בְּקַלְבּוֹן עַד שֶׁיִּשְּׂאוּ וְיִתְּנוּ בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת זוֹ הָאַחֲרוֹנָה וְיִשְׁתַּנּוּ הַמָּעוֹת:

English:

Brothers who have not divided the estate left to them by their father - and similarly, partners who give one shekel on behalf of the two individuals - are not obligated to give a kolbon. When does the above apply? When the partners have conducted business with the funds of the partnership, and [the initial funds are no longer present]. If, however, one individual brought funds and the other brought funds and they joined them together, but did not exchange or spend the funds, they are obligated to give a kolbon. If they conducted business with the funds of the partnership, afterwards divided the assets, and then entered into a new partnership, they are obligated to give a kolbon until they conduct business under the new partnership agreement, and exchange the money [in the partnership’s account].

Connection: The first clause is Rabbi Yirmeya’s fourth case (Segment 14): brothers who “did not divide this or that” are treated as if their father still pays one shekel for them, so they owe no kalbon. The last clause is the mishna’s case (Segment 8): brothers or partners who “divided and then re-partnered” owe the kalbon. The Rambam adds a time limit: until they trade with the money of the new partnership. Sefaria links this halacha to the mishna and to Rabbi Yirmeya’s cases. The Touger translation’s note records that the Ra’avad disagrees about ordinary partners. His text of the Mishna (Shekalim 1:7) read “brothers who are partners” rather than “brothers and partners”, so ordinary partners would owe the kalbon. Our mishna on 56b reads “brothers and partners” (הָאַחִין וְהַשּׁוּתָּפִין), as the Rambam’s text does.

Rambam — Hilchot Shekalim 3:5

Hebrew:

הָאַחִין וְהַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁהָיָה לָהֶן בְּהֵמָה וּכְסָפִים וְחָלְקוּ בַּכְּסָפִים חַיָּבִים בְּקַלְבּוֹן. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא חָלְקוּ הַבְּהֵמָה. וְאִם חָלְקוּ הַבְּהֵמָה וְלֹא חָלְקוּ הַכְּסָפִים פְּטוּרִין מִן הַקַּלְבּוֹן עַד שֶׁיַּחְלְקוּ הַכְּסָפִים וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין הֲרֵי הֵם עוֹמְדִין לַחֲלוּקָה:

English:

When [by contrast] brothers or partners jointly own an animal and funds, and then they subsequently divide the funds, they are obligated to give a kolbon although they have not divided the animal. Conversely, however, if they divided the animal, but did not divide the funds, they are not obligated to give a kolbon until they divide the funds. We do not say that the funds are about to be divided.

Connection: This is the kalbon side of Rabbi Yirmeya’s two middle cases, and it uses the Gemara’s own phrase. “They divided the money and not the animals” owe the kalbon. Put together with Bechorot 6:11, they owe tithe as well, which is Rabbi Yirmeya’s “obligated in both”. “They divided the animals and not the money” owe no kalbon. With 6:11, they are exempt from tithe too, which is his “exempt from both”. The closing words, “we do not say they stand to be divided” (וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין הֲרֵי הֵם עוֹמְדִין לַחֲלוּקָה), answer the Gemara’s question “isn’t it obvious?” (Segment 15). One might have thought that dividing the animals shows that the whole estate “stands to be divided”, so the kalbon should apply. The Rambam rules, as Rabbi Yirmeya teaches, that the kalbon waits until the money itself is divided.

Dividing Kids and Goats: Rav Nachman and Rabbi Yochanan

Source in Daf: 56b, Segments 16-21 (Rav Anan: re-partnered brothers are exempt only if one took the kids and the other the goats; Rav Nachman: even a like-for-like division is not “his share from the start”; Rabbi Elazar: only nine large against ten small; Rabbi Yochanan: even nine against nine and ten against ten is not “his share from the start”)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 6:10 (closing clause)

Hebrew:

וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָלְקוּ גְּדָיִים כְּנֶגֶד גְּדָיִים וּטְלָאִים כְּנֶגֶד טְלָאִים וַעֲשָׂרָה כְּנֶגֶד עֲשָׂרָה הַכֹּל פְּטוּרִין מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר וַהֲרֵי הֵן כִּלְקוּחִין:

English:

Even though they divided kids for kids and lambs for lambs, and even if they divided them by tens, they are all exempt from the tithes and considered as having been purchased.

Connection: The last line of the halacha quoted above settles both disputes in favour of the lenient view, that a division is always a purchase. “Kids against kids” is the case Rav Anan said obligates, and Rav Nachman exempts (Segments 16-18). “Ten against ten” is the case Rabbi Elazar said obligates, and Rabbi Yochanan exempts (Segments 19-21). The Rambam exempts both: “they are all exempt from tithe, and they are like purchased animals” (הַכֹּל פְּטוּרִין… וַהֲרֵי הֵן כִּלְקוּחִין). In both disputes this means we do not say “this is his share that comes to him from the first moment” (זֶה חֶלְקוֹ הַמַּגִּיעוֹ מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה). However the animals are split, a division between heirs counts as a mutual purchase. It is the same principle as “brothers who divide are purchasers”, which came up on 52b.

Kessef Mishneh on Hilchot Bechorot 6:10

Hebrew:

ומ”ש ואע”פ שחלקו גדיים כנגד גדיים וכו’. שם פלוגתא דאמוראי ופסק כר”נ וכתוב בספרי רבינו וטלאים כנגד גדיים וט”ס הוא וצריך להגיה ולכתוב וטלאים כנגד טלאים.

ומ”ש ועשרה כנגד עשרה. שם פלוגתא דאמוראי ופסק כר”י:

English (our translation):

And what he wrote, “and even though they divided kids against kids”, etc.: there it is a dispute of amoraim, and he ruled like Rav Nachman. And in the books of our master it is written “and lambs against kids”, and it is a scribal error; one must correct it and write “and lambs against lambs”.

And what he wrote, “and ten against ten”: there it is a dispute of amoraim, and he ruled like Rabbi Yochanan.

Connection: The Kessef Mishneh names the sources the Rambam is following. The first clause rules like Rav Nachman against Rav Anan, and the second like Rabbi Yochanan against Rabbi Elazar. In both disputes the second speaker in our Gemara, “and Rav Nachman says” and “and Rabbi Yochanan says”, holds that a like-for-like division is still not “his share from the start”. The Kessef Mishneh also corrects a scribal error in the printed Rambam: “lambs against kids” would describe the exchange case that everyone agrees is exempt, which would make the ruling pointless. The edition quoted above already has the corrected reading, “lambs against lambs” (וּטְלָאִים כְּנֶגֶד טְלָאִים).

Summary of Rulings