בכורות 56 — Soncino English Talmud

¹just as the law of [the first-born of] thy sons does not apply to a case of bought or presented, 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? — Scripture says: Thus thou shalt do. 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? — [The inference to be made] must resemble the case of ‘thy [first-born] son’. 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] 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]? — [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, 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? — Said Raba: Scripture says: ‘Thou shalt do’, intimating that only when doing [i.e., the act of consecration] is possible does Scripture impose restrictions. [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! — 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. 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 time 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’ may enter the shed to be tithed? Wherever it is given to her and then bought back from her. 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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ

^ᵃnote:As the cases of being bought or given as a present are not relevant to human first-born, for only those born to him are liable to the law of the first-born.
^ᵇnote:How then can you infer the case of tithing an animal from it? Moreover, a first-born is sanctified from birth.
^ᶜnote:The words ‘Thou shalt do’ means the act of consecration which of course cannot apply to a first-born, since the latter is holy from birth and no special act of dedication is necessary.
^ᵈnote:That they should not be brought from animals purchased or presented as a gift. What proof therefore have we that the text refers to the tithing of animals?
^ᵉnote:The text referring to the first-born of man.
^ᶠnote:Inserted with Sh. Mek.
^ᵍnote:Which it is a duty to bring and which is not brought to atone for a sin.
^ʰnote:As it is sacred immediately after birth.
^ⁱnote:Tosaf. observes that the same ruling applies even if they were already born, but are too young for sacrifice.
^ʲnote:Lit., ‘in the time of doing’. When dedication is appropriate, viz., after birth but not when the embryo is still in the inside of the animal.
^ᵏnote:Ordaining that an animal bought or presented as a gift is not to be tithed.
^ˡnote:If he bought it before the seventh day from its birth, it no longer enters the shed to be tithed, this certainly being the 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.
^ᵐnote:For according to his opinion an animal within seven days of its birth can be dedicated, and therefore the law of an 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.
^ⁿnote:For sacrifice has begun, viz., from seven days before its birth, since it is holy from birth.
^ᵒnote:A lamb given as the hire of a harlot, v. Deut. XXIII, 19.
^ᵖnote:If therefore he has nine animals and this one, they are subject to tithing. And if one of the fit ones come out the 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.
^ᵠnote:And here too we are dealing with a case where she was given an embryo which was in the inside of the mother.

²And why should not [the harlot] herself tithe it? — The reference is to a heathen harlot. But does not [the Baraitha] deal with an Israelitish harlot and let her tithe it herself? — This is what [the Baraitha] informs us [by implication]: That in the case of an Israelitish harlot, the animal has not the law of ‘hire’ as Abaye taught. For Abaye said: The hire of a heathen harlot is forbidden [for the altar] and a priest who has sexual relations with her is not liable to lashes for transgressing the negative precept: Neither shall he profane his seed among his people. But the hire of an Israelitish harlot is permitted [for the altar] and a priest, who has sexual relations with her is liable to lashes for transgressing the negative precept: ‘Neither shall he profane his seed among his people’. The hire of a heathen harlot is forbidden [for the altar] because we form an analogy between the expressions ‘abomination’ [mentioned in connection with a harlot] and ‘abomination’ mentioned in connection with forbidden relatives. Just as in the case of forbidden relations betrothal takes no effect, so a harlot [whose offering is forbidden] is one in whose case betrothal takes no effect. ‘And the priest who has sexual relations with her is not liable to lashes’, because Scripture says: ‘Neither shall he profane his seed among his people’; the Divine Law says he must not profane his seed, but in this case it is not his seed. MISHNAH. IF BROTHERS BECAME PARTNERS, THOUGH THEY ARE STILL BOUND TO PAY AGIO, THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM THE TITHE OF CATTLE. AND WHEN THEY BECOME LIABLE TO TITHE OF CATTLE, THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM PAYING AGIO; IF THEY ACQUIRED ANIMALS [THE CATTLE] FROM THE ESTATE, THEY ARE BOUND [TO TITHE THEM]. BUT IF NOT, THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM TITHING; IF THEY FIRST DIVIDED UP THE ESTATE AND THEN AGAIN BECAME PARTNERS, THEY ARE BOUND TO PAY AGIO AND ARE EXEMPT FROM TITHE OF CATTLE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [Scripture says]: ‘Shall be thine’, intimating, but not that is held in partnership. You might have thought that exemption applies even if one acquired the animals from the [paternal] estate. Therefore, the text states: ‘Shall be’. But is not this written in connection with the case of a first-born? — If it has no bearing on the case of a first-born, since the law of the first-born applies even in the case of a partnership, because it is written. And the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks, then apply it to the case of tithing animals. Said R. Jeremiah: Sometimes they are bound to tithe and to pay agio and sometimes they are exempt from both. Sometimes they are bound to pay agio and are exempt from tithing [the animals] and sometimes they are bound to tithe [the animals] and are exempt from paying agio. They are bound to tithe the animals and pay agio in the case where they divided the monies but not the animals. They are exempt from both, where they divided the animals but not the monies. They are bound to pay agio and are exempt from tithing animals where both animals and monies were divided. They are bound to tithe and are exempt from paying agio where neither monies nor animals were divided. Is not all this obvious? — He [R. Jeremiah] needed to inform us of the case where the animals were divided but not the monies. You might have thought that since they divided the animals, they have thus shown their intention of dividing the rest, and therefore they should be bound to pay agio. He therefore informs us that [this is not so]. Said R. ‘Anan: This is meant only when they divided kids against he-goats [in accordance with their value] and he-goats against kids [in accordance with their value] but where they divided kids against kids and he-goats against he-goats one can say: ‘This is the portion which was his from the outset’. But R. Nahman says: Even if they divided kids against kids and he-goats against he-goats we do not say: ‘This was the part which was his at the outset’. And R. Eleazar also says: This is meant only when they divided nine large animals against ten small ones [according to their value], or ten small animals against nine large ones. But if they divided nine animals against nine or ten animals against ten, one can say: ‘This is the part which was his from the outset’. But R. Johanan says: Even if they divided nine animals against nine or ten animals against ten, one does not say: ‘This is the part which was his at the outset’.^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ

^ʳnote:Since an embryo is not regarded as ‘hire’ but as a gift and can be eaten in its blemished state if it came forth the tenth. Why therefore must they proceed to buy it from her? (Rashi). R. Gershom explains that hire constitutes no prohibitions as regards tithing an animal, the rule of ‘lewdness’ not applying to an animal tithed, as is explained infra 57a.
^ˢnote:To whom the law of tithing animals is not applicable.
^ᵗnote:And is even permitted for the altar, the law of ‘hire’ only applying to a heathen harlot.
^ᵘnote:Lev. XXI, 15.
^ᵛnote:Deut. XXIII, 19.
^ʷnote:Lev. XVIII, 26.
^ˣnote:For the penalty of kareth (v. Glos.) applies to such cases, and all are agreed that betrothal cannot take effect in them.
^ʸnote:And a heathen's betrothal also is no betrothal, and therefore her hire is forbidden.
^ᶻnote:For the offspring has the status of the gentile mother.
^ᵃᵃnote:Having divided their father's estate and then become partners.
^ᵃᵇnote:When they bring their half-shekels to the Temple. It was customary on such occasions to pay a surcharge to compensate for any loss incurred in the Temple shekels collection in changing the shekels or half shekels into other money, v. Shek. I,7. Even if they wish to give a whole shekel together, they must pay double agio as if they were two strangers.
^ᵃᶜnote:For partners are exempt from tithing animals born to them so long as partnership lasts.
^ᵃᵈnote:As, for example, where the estate was not divided and it is still the inheritance of their father.
^ᵃᵉnote:If the two brothers gave a whole shekel, for it is as if their father were alive, he being able to exempt them when alive from paying agio.
^ᵃᶠnote:The Mishnah here does not exactly mean by the word in bought with money. for an animal bought is exempt from the law of tithing, but only that the animals fell to them as an inheritance from their father.
^ᵃᵍnote:Lit., ‘that which belongs to (i.e., is the possession of) the house’.
^ᵃʰnote:But are exempt from agio. The clause IF THEY ACQUIRED etc. is an explanation of the previous clause of the Mishnah, as follows: In saying that where tithing is required there is exemption from agios, we mean where they acquired etc.
^ᵃⁱnote:If they divided up the estate and then became partners again, the animals being born subsequently.
^ᵃʲnote:This passage to the end of the Mishnah is an explanation of the previous clause; But if not etc. For further notes v. Hull., Sonc. ed., p. 25b.
^ᵃᵏnote:Num. XVIII, 15.
^ᵃˡnote:The text implying that you give the animal which belongs to you by yourself but not that which belongs to you in partnership.
^ᵃᵐnote:That even in such a case he gives the animal.
^ᵃⁿnote:Deut. XII, 6. Your herds etc., the plural number being used.
^ᵃᵒnote:And became partners afterwards; hence they pay agio.
^ᵃᵖnote:And since the animals were not divided, they are still the fathers’ inheritance and must be tithed.
^ᵃᵠnote:As I could have derived these ruling from the Mishnah. What need has R. Jeremiah to teach us all this?
^ᵃʳnote:That we adopt the lenient view and exempt in both.
^ᵃˢnote:When we say that when they divided and then became partners they are exempt from tithing.
^ᵃᵗnote:For in that case one cannot say that this is the part which was due from his father's inheritance from the beginning, because at the death of their father, each brother acquired a half of the kids and a half of the goats. Consequently, the animals which were present at the time of the division of the estate are not subject to the tithe, as they come under the law of animals bought, while those which are born subsequently, are exempt on account of the brothers becoming partners.
^ᵃᵘnote:Because we hold the principle of bererah (retrospective designation; v. Glos.) and therefore each brother's share is still regarded as an inheritance, even after the brothers became partners again. Consequently, the animals born before the dividing up of the estate are not considered as animals bought to be exempted from tithing, nor are those that are born subsequently considered as born to brothers who hold the status of partners.
^ᵃᵛnote:For we do not hold the principle of bererah. Therefore at first when the division takes place the animals are regarded as bought, and those born later are regarded as born to brothers who hold the status of partners.
^ᵃʷnote:The difference between R. Eleazar and R. Johanan is in principle the same as that between R. Anan and R. Nahman.
^ᵃˣnote:Or lean ones (R. Gershom).