בכורות 53:1 — Soncino English Talmud

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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ

^ᵃnote:V. Lev. XXVII, 32. The fat and blood of an animal set aside as tithe are offered up and their flesh is eaten by its ritually clean owners in Jerusalem. Also, if blemished, it may be eaten in a state of uncleanness in all places.
^ᵇnote:Lit., ‘the Land’.
^ᶜnote:Those born after Elul, the first of this month being considered a New Year for the tithing of animals.
^ᵈnote:Those born before Elul.
^ᵉnote:Ibid.
^ᶠnote:Which says that the law concerning tithe of cattle is in force outside Palestine.
^ᵍnote:Deut. XII, 6.
^ʰnote:The plural tithes implies more than one tithe.
^ⁱnote:The tithing of grain is only practised in Palestine as it is a duty connected with the (Palestinian) soil.
^ʲnote:In the Baraitha.
^ᵏnote:R. Akiba does not permit the tithe animal brought from outside Palestine to be offered up.
^ˡnote:The Mishnah refers only to the animal's consecration, stating that the law of tithe regarding an animal applies in that respect even outside Palestine.
^ᵐnote:That R. Akiba only excludes the animal set aside as tithe from being sacrificed.
^ⁿnote:Unless it be that it might be offered up as a sacrifice.
^ᵒnote:Waiting for a blemish to befall the animal, for an animal set aside as tithe may be eaten by the owner whether it is blemished or unblemished, Scripture not enjoining that it must be given to a priest.
^ᵖnote:When there is no Temple in existence.
^ᵠnote:Lit., ‘an orphan’.
^ʳnote:An orphaned animal not being subject to the law of tithe, v. infra 58b.
^ˢnote:That even when there was a Temple there should be no tithing of animals, in case an orphaned animal enters the shed for tithing.
^ᵗnote:That one should not bring an orphaned animal to the shed.
^ᵘnote:With reference to the tithing of animals in these days.
^ᵛnote:Lit., ‘a stumbling-block’. For since we have no altar nowadays, we have to keep the animal until it becomes blemished. There is thus a possibility that an offence might be committed, that the animal might be worked and shorn or slaughtered before it is blemished.
^ʷnote:Dedicated as holy for the priests or sacred use.
^ˣnote:Because we cannot hide them until the Temple is rebuilt and therefore we apprehend that an offence might be committed with them.
^ʸnote:Lit., ‘uprooted’.
^ᶻnote:V. A.Z. 13a.
^ᵃᵃnote:That an animal set aside as tithe nowadays is not holy for fear of the law being transgressed.
^ᵃᵇnote:For fear that it might be shorn etc.
^ᵃᶜnote:The law being that if a heathen has a share in the first-born it is not subject to redemption, v. supra 2a. If you therefore fear an offence against the law, why not adopt this remedy?