Parallel
בכורות 53
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
MISHNAH. THE LAW CONCERNING THE TITHE OF CATTLE IS IN FORCE IN PALESTINE AND OUTSIDE PALESTINE, IN THE DAYS WHEN THE TEMPLE EXISTS AND WHEN IT DOES NOT EXIST, [IT APPLIES] TO HULLIN ONLY BUT NOT TO CONSECRATED ANIMALS. IT APPLIES BOTH TO LARGE CATTLE AND SHEEP. (THOUGH NONE CAN BE TITHED FOR THE OTHER); TO LAMBS AND TO GOATS (AND ONE CAN BE TITHED FOR THE OTHER); TO THE NEW BREED AND THE OLD, (THOUGH NONE CAN BE TITHED FOR THE OTHER). NOW IT MIGHT BE RIGHTLY ARGUED: SEEING THAT NEW AND OLD ANIMALS WHICH ARE NOT TREATED AS DIVERSE KINDS IN REGARD TO ONE ANOTHER ARE YET NOT TITHED ONE FOR THE OTHER, LAMBS AND GOATS WHICH ARE TREATED AS DIVERSE KINDS IN REGARD TO ONE ANOTHER, ALL THE MORE SHOULD NOT BE TITHED ONE FOR THE OTHER. THE TEXT THEREFORE STATES: AND OF THE FLOCK, INTIMATING THAT ALL KINDS OF FLOCK ARE CONSIDERED ONE [FOR PURPOSES OF TITHING]. GEMARA. May we say that our Mishnah is not in accordance with R. Akiba? For it was taught: R. Akiba says: You might think that a man may take up an animal set aside as tithe from outside Palestine and offer it? [To guard against this inference] the text states: And thither ye shall bring your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices and your tithes. Scripture speaks of two kinds of tithes, one the tithing of animals, and the other the tithe of grain. [And I draw an analogy thus]: from the place from which you can bring up the tithe of grain you can bring up an animal set aside as tithe, but from a place from which you cannot bring up the tithe of grain, you cannot bring up an animal set aside as tithe [to be sacrificed]! — [No]. You can even say [that the Mishnah is] in accordance with R. Akiba. The one statement refers to offering [the animal up]. the other to the consecration [thereof]. This is also indicated by the fact that he [R. Akiba] derives his teaching from the text: ‘And thither ye shall bring’, [thus referring distinctly to offering up]. This proves it. But since [the animal] is not offered up, for what purpose is it consecrated? — To be eaten by the owners when it becomes blemished. IN THE DAYS WHEN THE TEMPLE EXISTS AND WHEN IT DOES NOT EXIST. If this be the case, [then the law of tithe as regards animals] should apply even nowadays? — It is as R. Huna says [elsewhere], for R. Huna said: [It is prohibited] as a prevention against an animal whose mother died [during or soon after childbirth being brought into the shed]. If this be the case, the same prohibition should have applied originally [when the Temple was standing]? [What you must] therefore [reply is that] it is possible for an announcement to be made [by the Beth din]. [This being so], here too it is possible to have all announcement made [by the Beth din]? — Rather said Raba: The reason is that one might be led to commit an offence. And whence will you prove that we take into account the possibility of one committing an offence? — For it was taught: We are not permitted to consecrate an animal, nor to make valuation, nor to set aside as devoted nowadays. But if one did consecrate an animal, or make a valuation or set aside as devoted, the animal is to be destroyed; fruits, garments and vessels shall be allowed to rot and as for money and metal vessels, let him cast them into the Salt Sea. And what is meant by destroying? He locks the door on [the animal] and it dies of itself [from hunger]. If this be the case, then a first-born [of an animal] should also not become holy nowadays? Is then the sanctity of a first-born dependent on us? Is it not holy from the time it leaves the womb? — This is what is meant [by the question]: Let him make over to a heathen the ears of the [mothers of the prospective offspring] so that they shall not be sanctified from the beginning?29
—
— It is possible to adopt the remedy of Rab Judah. For Rab Judah said: One may maim a first-born before it is born. But here also it is possible to cause a blemish from the beginning? — Who knows which animal will come out [the tenth]? And should you say that he brings it out as tenth, [Scripture says]: He shall not search whether it be good or bad. And should you say that it is possible to cause a blemish in the whole herd [of animals], — the Temple may be speedily rebuilt and we shall require an animal for a sacrifice and there will be none. But does this not also apply to a first-born, that the Temple may speedily be rebuilt and we shall require an animal for sacrifice and there will be none? — It is possible [in the latter case] to use plain [non first-born] animals. There too [in the case of the tithing of animals] it is possible to sacrifice animals bought? — Since he causes a blemish in the entire herd [of animals], and blemishes which disqualify consecrated animals are frequent, for even a cataract disqualifies, animals for sacrifice are not easy to obtain. IT APPLIES TO HULLIN ONLY BUT NOT TO CONSECRATED ANIMALS. But is it not obvious that the law of tithing animals does not apply to consecrated animals, seeing that they are not his? — This statement refers to sacrifices of a minor grade and is in accordance with the opinion of R. Jose the Galilean who said: Sacrifices of a minor grade are considered the property of the owners. For it has been taught: And commit a trespass against the Lord, this includes sacrifices of a minor grade, which are considered the owner's property. These are the words of R. Jose the Galilean. You might therefore think that they should be tithed. [The Mishnah] consequently informs us [that it is not so]. And why not say that this is so? — The Divine Law says: [The tenth] shall be holy, implying but not what is already holy. Now the reason of this is because the Divine Law says: ‘Shall be holy’, but otherwise the holiness of an animal set aside for tithe would have applied to consecrated animals. But if a major grade of holiness is not superimposed on a minor grade is there any question of a minor grade being superimposed on a minor grade? (What is referred to? — As we have learnt: Neither objects dedicated for sacrifices nor offerings for Temple repair may be changed from one holiness to the other. But it is permitted to dedicate [for Temple repair] the value [one receives for obliging somebody] in connection with dedicated sacrifices, or we may declare [the benefit received for obliging somebody] as devoted [for the altar])! — You might have said that there [the reason is that] every animal is not designated for a burnt-offering, but here, since every animal must be tithed, therefore although he dedicated it for a peace-offering, he does not exempt it from the prohibition applying to an animal tithed. And what would be the practical difference? That he is liable of transgressing on their account [the negative precepts of]: ‘It shall not be sold’, and ‘It shall not be redeemed’. [The text therefore: ‘Shall be holy’] intimates that this is not so. IT ALSO APPLIES BOTH TO LARGE CATTLE AND SHEEP BUT THEY CANNOT BE TITHED ONE FOR THE OTHER; TO LAMBS AND GOATS etc. And why should not [we derive a rule that] the new animals [born after Elul] and the old born [before Elul] be tithed one for the other a minori [thus]: If lambs and goats which are treated as diverse kinds in regard to one another are tithed one for the other, does it not stand to reason that new and old animals which are not treated as diverse kinds in regard to one another should be tithed one for the other? Scripture however, states: Thou shalt truly tithe. Scripture speaks of two kinds of tithes, one the tithing of animals and the other the tithing of grain, and it compares the case of an animal tithed with that of the tithing of grain; just as in the case of the tithing of grain it is forbidden to tithe the new for the old so in the case of the tithing of animals it is also forbidden to tithe the new for the old. If this be the fact, the same should apply to the case of lambs and goats? Why not say that we compare the tithing of animals to the tithing of grain so that, just as in the case of the tithing of grain you must not tithe one kind of grain for the other, so in the case of the tithing of animals you must not tithe one kind [of animal] for the other? — The Divine Law includes [all by stating] flock’. If this be so, then [include] also new and old [animals]? — Scripture says: ‘Thou shalt truly tithe’? And why do you see fit? — Said Rab: Scripture says: ‘year by year’, [intimating], I [Scripture] have compared the tithing of animals with the tithing of grain in respect of the year, but not with reference to any other matter [e.g., one kind of animal for another]. We have learnt elsewhere: We must not separate [terumah from] one kind of grain for another, and if one does so separate, his terumah is no terumah. Whence is this proved? R. Ammi reported in the name of R. Jannai, (another version is: R. Ammi reported in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish): [Scripture says]: All the best of the oil and all the best of the wine and of the wheat. The Torah thus said: Give the best for this and the best for that. 41
—