Bekhorot — Daf 56a

מה בניך אין בלקוח ובמתנה אף צאנך ובקרך אינו בלקוח ובמתנה

והאי בבכור כתיב א"ק (שמות כב, כט) כן תעשה אם אינו ענין לבכור דלא איתיה בעשייה דברחם קדוש תנהו ענין למעשר בהמה

ואימא תנהו ענין לחטאת ולאשם דומיא דבנך מה בנך שאינו בא על חטא אף צאנך ושורך שאינו בא על חטא

ואימא תנהו ענין לעולה ולשלמים דומיא דבנך מה בנך שאינו בא בנדר ונדבה אף צאנך ושורך כו'

ואימא תנהו ענין לעולת ראייה דומיא דבנך מה בנך שאין קבוע לו זמן אף שורך וצאנך שאין קבוע לו זמן

אי מה בנך אינו בלקוח כלל אף שורך וצאנך אינו בלקוח כלל אלמה א"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן לקח עשרה עוברין במעי אמן כולם נכנסין לדיר להתעשר

אמר רבא אמר קרא תעשה בשעת עשייה מיעט הכתוב

גופא א"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן לקח עשרה עוברים במעי אמן כולן נכנסין לדיר להתעשר והא אנן תנן הלקוח או שניתן לו במתנה פטור מן מעשר בהמה

א"ר אלעזר ר' יוחנן חזאי בחילמא מילתא מעליא אמינא א"ק תעשה בשעת עשייה מיעט הכתוב איתיביה ר' שמעון בן אליקים לר' אלעזר הלקוח חל על מחוסר זמן

אמר ליה זו אינה משנה ואם תמצא לומר משנה ר"ש בן יהודה היא משום ר"ש דאמר מחוסר זמן נכנס לדיר להתעשר והרי הוא כבכור מה בכור קדוש לפני זמנו וקרב לאחר זמנו אף מחוסר זמן קדוש לפני זמנו וקרב לאחר זמנו

תני תנא קמיה דרב איזהו אתנן שנכנס לדיר להתעשר כל שנתנו לה וחזר ולקחו הימנה והא איפסיל ליה בלוקח

אישתמיטתיה הא דאמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן לקח עשרה עוברין במעי אמן כולם נכנסין לדיר להתעשר

just as the law of [the first-born of] thy sons does not apply to a case of bought or presented,1 so [the law referring to] ‘Thine oxen and thy sheep’ does not apply to the bought or given as a present. But does not this [text] refer to a first-born?2 — Scripture says: Thus thou shalt do.3 If the text has no bearing on the subject of a first-born, to which doing [i.e., the act of consecration] does not apply, since a first-born is holy from birth, then apply it to the subject of the tithing of animals. But why not say: Apply it to the case of a sin-offering or trespass-offering?4 — [The inference to be made] must resemble the case of ‘thy [first-born] son’.5 Just as ‘thy [first-born] son’ is not brought [to atone] for a sin, so ‘thine oxen and [with] thy sheep’ must be such as are not brought [to atone] for a sin. But why not say: Apply [the text] to a burnt-offering or peace-offering? — [The inference to be made] must resemble the case of ‘thy [first. born] son’. Just as the case of ‘thy [first-born] son’ [is obligatory]6 and he cannot be brought [to the altar] as the result of a vow or freewill-offering, so in the case of ‘thine oxen and with thy sheep’. But why not say: Apply [the text] to the case of a pilgrim's burnt-offering of appearance [before the Lord]?7 — [The rule] must resemble the case of ‘thy first-born son’. Just as in the case of thy first-born son there is no fixed time for him to become holy,8 so in the case of ‘thine oxen and with thy sheep’ no time is fixed for their holiness. I might have said, however, that just as [the rule of] ‘thy first-born son’ does not apply at all to where he is bought, similarly [the rule of] ‘thine oxen and with thy sheep’ does not apply at all to where they are bought; why then did R. Assi report in the name of Rab Johanan: If one bought ten embryos which were in the insides of their mothers they all enter the shed to be tithed?9 — Said Raba: Scripture says: ‘Thou shalt do’, intimating that only when doing [i.e., the act of consecration] is possible10 does Scripture impose restrictions.11 [To revert to] the [above] text: ‘R. Assi reported in the name of R. Johanan: If one bought ten embryos which were in the insides of their mothers, all of them enter the shed to be tithed’. But have we not learnt: AN ANIMAL BOUGHT OR GIVEN AS A PRESENT IS EXEMPT FROM THE LAW OF CATTLE TITHE? Said R. Eleazar: R. Johanan appeared [last night] to me in a dream [therefore I know] that I will say a good thing [to-day], [as follows]: Scripture says: ‘Thou shalt do’, intimating that only where the act of consecration is possible does Scripture impose restrictions. R. Simeon b. Eliakim raised an objection against the opinion of R. Eleazar: [The law of] an animal bought, applies also to an animal too young for sacrifice!12 — He replied to him: This is not a [recognized] teaching. And if you will say that it is a [recognized] teaching, then it must be the opinion of R. Simeon b. Judah.13 For it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon: An animal too young for sacrifice may enter the shed to be tithed, and it is on a par with a first-born. Just as a first-born is holy before its time14 and is sacrificed after its time [i.e., after waiting seven days], similarly an animal too young for sacrifice becomes holy before its time and is sacrificed after its time. A Tanna recited before Rab: What kind of ‘hire’15 may enter the shed to be tithed? Wherever it is given to her and then bought back from her.16 But is not the animal disqualified because it is bought? — The questioner failed to notice that which R. Assi reported in the name of R. Johanan: If one bought ten embryos which were in the insides of their mothers, all of them enter the shed to be tithed.17 liable to the law of the first-born. is holy from birth and no special act of dedication is necessary. text refers to the tithing of animals? inside of the animal. case if he bought it as a full-grown animal. We see then that its being too young for sacrifice prevents consecration from taking place, and still the law of an animal bought applies to it. animal bought applies to it. He admits nevertheless that if an embryo was in the inside of the mother, the law of an animal bought does not apply to it. tenth, then it is well. And if the harlot's offering came out the tenth, it is eaten when it becomes blemished by its owners.