Bekhorot

And R. Johanan follows the opinion he expressed elsewhere:1 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.2 And it was necessary [for R. Johanan to state both rulings]. For if he had stated only this ruling,3 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’.4 Just as the text thy first-born son’ deals with a case where you are certain5 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,6 I might have said that in that case R. Johanan holds this opinion because it makes for greater stringency.7 Or indeed, a field returns in Jubilee because [after returning] it is [like] at the beginning [before the division],8 but here I might have said, it is not so.9 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]10 but those taken with the dog11 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?12 — Said R. Ashi: If they were all of the same value,13 it would really be so.14 We are assuming here,15 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.16 MISHNAH. ALL [LAMBS] ENTER THE SHED TO BE TITHED EXCEPT KIL'AYIM,17 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’,18 this excludes the case of kil'ayim. Or a goat;19 this excludes the case of nidmeh;20 Is brought forth21 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,22 and there it says: Under the dam;18 just as there23 all the categories24 are excluded, similarly here all the categories are excluded. And just as here25 a trefah is excluded,26 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,27 or given as ‘hire’,28 or as ‘price [of a dog]’,29 a tumtum30 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?31 — If he draws an analogy between ‘under’32 and ‘under’ mentioned in connection with consecrated objects, these also33 should not be tithed?34 And if he does not infer from the case of consecrated objects, whence does he infer these?35 — 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.36 And R. Ishmael taught: Wherever corruption is mentioned, the act of ‘lewdness’37 and idolatry is meant. An act of ‘lewdness’ because it is written in the Scriptures: For all flesh hath corrupted his way on the earth38 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.39 And where ever a blemish disqualifies, the act of ‘lewdness’ and idolatry also disqualify,40 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,41 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].42 ‘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?43 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’44 but with regard to kil'ayim, whence does he prove this?45 — 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 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. return every man to his possession. We therefore say that there is no bererah in order that it should return to Jubilee. that we hold the principle of bererah and that what each of the brothers receives now is the same part which was his originally. altar. intention was from the beginning that the lamb he would choose would be the equivalent of the dog (Tosaf.). tenth is the equivalent of the dog, then we would hold the principle of bererah. 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). Lev. XXII, 27. animal whose leg was cut from the knee and upwards; v. infra 58a. position physically to ‘pass under the rod’ in order to be tithed.