בכורות 57:1 — Soncino English Talmud

And R. Johanan follows the opinion he expressed elsewhere: For R. Assi reported in the name of R. Johanan: Brothers who divide an estate are considered as purchasers and return [their respective parts] to each other in Jubilee. And it was necessary [for R. Johanan to state both rulings]. For if he had stated only this ruling, I might have said that R. Johanan only holds his view in this case because the tithing of animals is compared with ‘thy first-born son’. Just as the text thy first-born son’ deals with a case where you are certain so the text ‘thine oxen and with thy sheep’ deals with a case where you are certain. But with respect to a field, only in case of a sale does the Divine Law say that it should return [to its original owner] in Jubilee, but not in the case of an inheritance or a present. And if R. Johanan had stated his ruling with reference only to a field, I might have said that in that case R. Johanan holds this opinion because it makes for greater stringency. Or indeed, a field returns in Jubilee because [after returning] it is [like] at the beginning [before the division], but here I might have said, it is not so. Therefore both [rulings by R. Johanan] are necessary. An objection was raised: And likewise if partners divided [an estate] and one took ten lambs and the other took nine with a dog, [the lambs] taken against the dog are forbidden [for the altar] but those taken with the dog are permitted. Now if you say that we hold the principle of bererah let him pick out one lamb as the equivalent of the dog and the rest should be permitted for the altar? — Said R. Ashi: If they were all of the same value, it would really be so. We are assuming here, however, that they are not all alike in value and this dog is equal in value to one lamb plus a little and this little extends to all. MISHNAH. ALL [LAMBS] ENTER THE SHED TO BE TITHED EXCEPT KIL'AYIM, TREFAH, OFFSPRING BROUGHT FORTH BY MEANS OF THE CAESAREAN SECTION, AN ANIMAL TOO YOUNG FOR SACRIFICE, AND AN ‘ORPHAN’ [ANIMAL]. AND WHAT IS AN ‘ORPHAN’? WHEN ITS DAM HAS DIED DURING ITS BIRTH OR WAS SLAUGHTERED AND SUBSEQUENTLY GAVE BIRTH. BUT R. JOSHUA SAYS: EVEN WHEN THE DAM HAS BEEN KILLED, IF THE HIDE IS STILL INTACT THE OFFSPRING IS NOT AN ‘ORPHAN’ ANIMAL. GEMARA. Whence is this proved? — For our Rabbis taught: Scripture says: When a bullock or a sheep’, this excludes the case of kil'ayim. Or a goat; this excludes the case of nidmeh; Is brought forth excludes the case of offspring brought forth by the caesarean section; Then it shall be seven days excludes the case of an animal too young for sacrifice; Under the dam excludes the case of an ‘orphan’. R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Berokah says: Here it says: Under the rod, and there it says: Under the dam; just as there all the categories are excluded, similarly here all the categories are excluded. And just as here a trefah is excluded, so there a trefah is excluded. What is the word ALL meant to include in addition? — It includes what our Rabbis taught: [An animal] which covered [a woman], that was covered [by a man] or designated for idolatrous purposes and one actually so used, or given as ‘hire’, or as ‘price [of a dog]’, a tumtum and a hermaphrodite — all of these enter the shed to be tithed. But R. Simeon b. Judah said in the name of R. Simeon: A tumtum and a hermaphrodite do not enter the shed to be tithed. And our Tanna? — If he draws an analogy between ‘under’ and ‘under’ mentioned in connection with consecrated objects, these also should not be tithed? And if he does not infer from the case of consecrated objects, whence does he infer these? — One may still say that he does draw the analogy, but the Divine Law included these because it is written: Because their corruption is in them and blemishes be in them; they shall not be accepted for you. And R. Ishmael taught: Wherever corruption is mentioned, the act of ‘lewdness’ and idolatry is meant. An act of ‘lewdness’ because it is written in the Scriptures: For all flesh hath corrupted his way on the earth and idolatry because it is written: Lest ye corrupt yourselves and make you a graven image the similitude of any figure the likeness of a male or female. And where ever a blemish disqualifies, the act of ‘lewdness’ and idolatry also disqualify, and wherever a blemish does not disqualify, the act of ‘lewdness’ and idolatry do not disqualify. And in the case of tithing an animal, since a blemish does not disqualify, because Scripture writes: He shall not search whether it be good or bad neither shall he change it, the act of ‘lewdness’ and idolatry also do not disqualify an animal for tithing. The case of an animal which covers [a woman] or that was covered [by a man] come under the head of ‘lewdness’. [An animal] designated for idolatrous purposes and one so used are cases of idolatry. And [one given as] ‘hire’ comes under the category of an act of ‘lewdness’; and the — ‘price [of a dog]’ is compared with the case of the ‘hire’. As regards a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, he holds that there exists a doubt [in each case]. ‘R. Simeon b. Judah says etc.’ He holds that a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are of doubtful sex. Now in the case of consecrated objects, the Divine Law restricted the offering to an undisputed male and an undisputed female, prohibiting a tumtum or a hermaphrodite; and with regard also to the tithing of animals we form an analogy between ‘under’ and ‘under’ mentioned in connection with consecrated objects. Our Rabbis have taught: All lambs enter the shed to be tithed except kil'ayim and trefah. These are the words of R. Eleazar b. Judah a man of Kefar Bartotha, who reported this in the name of R. Joshua. Said R. Akiba: I have heard from him that this applies also to offspring which came forth through the caesarean section, an animal too young for sacrifice and an ‘orphan’. And the first Tanna [R. Joshua] quoted above? If he draws the analogy between ‘under’ and ‘under’ mentioned in connection with consecrated objects, these too [which are added by R. Akiba] should not be tithed. And if he does not make the analogy, we can indeed understand why trefah is not tithed, because Scripture says: ‘All that shall pass under the rod’, thus excluding the case of trefah which does not ‘pass’ but with regard to kil'ayim, whence does he prove this? — One may still say that [the first Tanna] draws the analogy [mentioned] and in respect of offspring brought forth by means of the caesarean section^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^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ

^ᵃnote:That there is no bererah.
^ᵇnote:V. supra 52b.
^ᶜnote:The case of an animal tithed.
^ᵈnote:The first-born of thy sons thou shalt give unto Me. Likewise thou shalt do with thine oxen etc. Ex. XXII, 28, 29.
^ᵉnote:That your son was born in your possession.
^ᶠnote:That there is no bererah and that the field returns in Jubilee.
^ᵍnote:For as there is a doubt we adopt the more stringent view that the brothers are considered as buyers and thus the field returns in Jubilee, whereas in the case of the tithing of animals, if you say that the animals are considered as bought, you are adopting the more lenient view.
^ʰnote:Since returning in Jubilee applies to a field, and therefore when this takes place we can apply the text: And ye shall return every man to his possession. We therefore say that there is no bererah in order that it should return to Jubilee.
^ⁱnote:Because in the case of tithing animals, since the law of returning in Jubilee does not apply here, I might have said that we hold the principle of bererah and that what each of the brothers receives now is the same part which was his originally.
^ʲnote:Because one of them is the exchange for the dog, and as we do not know which, therefore all are prohibited for the altar.
^ᵏnote:There is no prohibition as regards the nine lambs which are with the dog.
^ˡnote:For since we hold the principle of bererah, then we ought to leave it to his judgement and to assume that his intention was from the beginning that the lamb he would choose would be the equivalent of the dog (Tosaf.).
^ᵐnote:If every lamb of the nine lambs had a companion in the ten lambs of equal value and thus it would be found that the tenth is the equivalent of the dog, then we would hold the principle of bererah.
^ⁿnote:That he would pick out one and the remainder would be fit to be offered up on the altar.
^ᵒnote:When we say that all the ten lambs are forbidden.
^ᵖnote:Where the nine lambs of the ten are worth more than the nine which are together with the dog and the dog worth the tenth plus a little over. Thus a portion of the value of the dog is to be found in all the opposite lambs and consequently they are ali forbidden for the altar. For example, suppose the ten lambs are each worth four and one-tenth zuz, making a total of forty-one zuz, and the dog is worth five zuz. Then the nine remaining lambs are worth thirty-six zuz or four zuz each — one-tenth of a zuz less than each of the others. Hence the dog is the equivalent of each of the ten opposite lambs plus the tenth of a zuz in each, and this tenth in each is the equivalent of a portion of the dog and therefore causes them all to be forbidden to be sacrificed being ‘the price of a dog’ (v. Deut. XXIII, 19).
^ᵠnote:Beasts that are cross-bred.
^ʳnote:Lev. XXII, 27.
^ˢnote:A continuation of the previous scriptural text.
^ᵗnote:Lit., one who resembles’. One whose mother is a ewe while the animal itself resembles a goat.
^ᵘnote:A continuation of the previous text. The other three texts given below are also a continuation of the same passage in Lev. XXII, 27.
^ᵛnote:Lev. XXVII, 32, with reference to the tithing of animals.
^ʷnote:In the case of dedicated objects.
^ˣnote:Lit., ‘names’, i.e., those enumerated in the Baraitha above, vis., kil'ayim, nidmeh etc.
^ʸnote:In the case of the tithing of animals.
^ᶻnote:Because Scripture says: ‘All that shall pass’, thus excluding a trefah which cannot pass, since trefah includes an animal whose leg was cut from the knee and upwards; v. infra 58a.
^ᵃᵃnote:By the offering of a libation between its horns (Rashi).
^ᵃᵇnote:A harlot's hire.
^ᵃᶜnote:An animal taken in exchange for a dog.
^ᵃᵈnote:One whose sex is unknown.
^ᵃᵉnote:Of the Mishnah who says ALL, what is his position?
^ᵃᶠnote:Under the rod mentioned in connection with tithing.
^ᵃᵍnote:The cases of an animal designated for idolatrous purposes and one so used, an animal which covered a woman etc.
^ᵃʰnote:For all these are disqualified in the case of dedicated objects.
^ᵃⁱnote:Viz., an animal too young for sacrifice an orphan, etc. as not being tithed.
^ᵃʲnote:Lev. XXII, 25.
^ᵃᵏnote:Like the case of an animal which covered a woman etc.
^ᵃˡnote:Gen. VI, 12. The ‘corruption’ referred to here means immorality, as mentioned in verse 2 in the same chapter.
^ᵃᵐnote:Deut. IV, 16.
^ᵃⁿnote:For Scripture compared them with a blemish: ‘ Because their corruption is in them and blemishes be in them’.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lev. XXVII, 33.
^ᵃᵖnote:Whether it is a male or female and consequently both are tithed.
^ᵃᵠnote:Who does not mention the cases referred to by R. Akiba.
^ᵃʳnote:If it became a trefah, for example, through having its leg broken from the knee upward, in which case it is not in a position physically to ‘pass under the rod’ in order to be tithed.
^ᵃˢnote:That it does not enter to be tithed.