| { | |
| "title": "Mishnah Bekhorot", | |
| "language": "en", | |
| "versionTitle": "merged", | |
| "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Bekhorot", | |
| "text": [ | |
| [ | |
| "With regard to <b>one who purchases the fetus of a donkey that belongs to a gentile, and one who sells</b> the fetus of his donkey <b>to</b> a gentile <b>although he is not permitted</b> to sell a large animal to a gentile, and <b>one who enters into a partnership with</b> a gentile in ownership of a donkey or its fetus, <b>and one who receives</b> a donkey <b>from</b> a gentile in order to care for it in exchange for partnership in its offspring, <b>and one who gives</b> his donkey <b>to</b> a gentile <b>in receivership,</b> in all of these cases the donkeys are <b>exempt from the</b> obligations of <b>firstborn status,</b> i.e., they do not have firstborn status and are not redeemed, <b>as it is stated:</b> “I sanctified to Me all the firstborn <b>in Israel,</b> both man and animal” (Numbers 3:13), indicating that the mitzva is incumbent upon the Jewish people, <b>but not upon others.</b> If the firstborn belongs even partially to a gentile, it does not have firstborn status. <b>Priests and Levites are exempt</b> from the obligation to redeem a firstborn donkey; this is derived <b>from an <i>a fortiori</i></b> inference: In the wilderness the firstborn were redeemed in exchange for the Levites, as it is stated: “Take the Levites in exchange for all the firstborn among the children of Israel and the animal of the Levites in exchange for their animals” (Numbers 3:45). <b>If</b> the priests and Levites <b>rendered exempt</b> the firstborn children and donkeys <b>of the Israelites in the wilderness</b> from being counted firstborns, <b>it is</b> only <b>logical that</b> the priests and the Levites <b>should render</b> the firstborn of <b>their own</b> donkeys <b>exempt</b> from being counted firstborns.", | |
| "<b>A cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts and a donkey that gave birth to a horse of sorts are exempt from</b> their offspring being counted <b>a firstborn, as it is stated:</b> “And every <b>firstborn of a donkey</b> you shall redeem with a lamb” (Exodus 13:13); “and the <b>firstborn of a donkey</b> you shall redeem with a lamb” (Exodus 34:20). The Torah states this <i>halakha</i> <b>twice,</b> indicating that one is not obligated <b>unless</b> both <b>the birth mother is a donkey and the</b> animal <b>born is a donkey.</b> <b>And what</b> is the halakhic status of offspring that are unlike the mother animal <b>with regard to</b> their <b>consumption?</b> In the case of <b>a kosher animal that gave birth to a non-kosher animal of sorts,</b> its <b>consumption is permitted. And</b> in the case of <b>a non-kosher</b> animal <b>that gave birth to a kosher animal of sorts,</b> its <b>consumption is prohibited.</b> This is <b>because that which emerges from the non-kosher</b> animal <b>is non-kosher and that which emerges from the kosher</b> animal <b>is kosher.</b> In the case of <b>a non-kosher fish that swallowed a kosher fish, consumption</b> of the kosher fish is <b>permitted. And</b> in the case of <b>a kosher</b> fish <b>that swallowed a non-kosher fish, consumption</b> of the non-kosher fish is <b>prohibited due to</b> the fact <b>that</b> the host fish <b>is not</b> the place of <b>its development.</b>", | |
| "In the case of <b>a female donkey that had not</b> previously <b>given birth and</b> now <b>gave birth to two male</b> offspring, as there is no doubt that one of them is firstborn, its owner <b>gives one lamb to the priest</b> in redemption of that firstborn. If it gave birth to <b>a male and a female</b> and it is not known which was born first, <b>he designates one lamb</b> as firstborn in case the male was born first. Nevertheless, since it is merely a monetary debt to the priest, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, in this case the priest. Due to that uncertainty, the priest can offer no proof and the owner keeps the lamb <b>for himself.</b> If an individual has two donkeys, and both of <b>his two donkeys had not</b> previously <b>given birth and they</b> now <b>gave birth to two males,</b> one each, the owner <b>gives two lambs to the priest.</b> If they together gave birth to <b>a male and a female or</b> to <b>two males and a female, he gives one lamb to the priest,</b> as one of the males is certainly a firstborn. If they together gave birth to <b>two females and a male or</b> to <b>two males and two females, the priest receives nothing,</b> as perhaps the two firstborn were females.", | |
| "If <b>one</b> of his donkeys <b>had</b> previously <b>given birth and one had not</b> previously <b>given birth and</b> they now together <b>gave birth to two males,</b> the owner <b>gives one lamb to the priest</b> as redemption for the firstborn male. If they together gave birth to <b>a male and a female he designates one lamb for himself,</b> as it is uncertain whether or not the male was a firstborn and the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. From where is it derived that the firstborn of a donkey is redeemed with a lamb? It is derived from a verse, <b>as it is stated: “And you shall redeem the firstborn of a donkey with a lamb [<i>seh</i>]”</b> (Exodus 34:20). The owner may give a lamb either <b>from sheep or from goats;</b> from <b>males or females,</b> from <b>older or younger</b> animals, and from <b>unblemished or blemished</b> animals. If the priest returns the lamb to the owner, he <b>may redeem</b> firstborn donkeys <b>with it many times.</b> In a case where he designates a lamb due to uncertainty and keeps it for himself, it is his in every sense. Consequently, <b>it enters the pen in order to be tithed</b> with the other non-sacred animals (see Leviticus 27:32), <b>and if it dies, one may derive benefit from its</b> carcass.", | |
| "<b>One may not redeem</b> a firstborn donkey, <b>neither with a calf, nor with an undomesticated animal, nor with a slaughtered</b> animal, <b>nor with a <i>tereifa</i>, nor with a hybrid</b> of a sheep and a goat, <b>nor with a <i>koy</i>,</b> which is an animal with regard to which it is uncertain whether it is domesticated or undomesticated. <b>And Rabbi Eliezer deems it permitted</b> to redeem a firstborn donkey <b>with a hybrid</b> of a sheep and a goat, <b>because it is a lamb,</b> i.e., that hybrid has the status of a lamb, <b>but prohibits</b> redeeming it <b>with a <i>koy</i>, because its</b> status is <b>uncertain.</b> If one <b>gave</b> the firstborn donkey <b>to a priest, the priest may not keep it unless</b> he first <b>designates a lamb in its stead</b> for redemption.", | |
| "In the case of <b>one who designates</b> a lamb for the <b>redemption of a firstborn donkey and</b> the lamb <b>dies, Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> The owner <b>bears</b> financial <b>responsibility</b> and must give the priest another lamb in its place. This is <b>like</b> the case of the <b>five <i>sela</i></b> for redemption <b>of</b> a firstborn <b>son,</b> where if the money is lost before one gives it to the priest, he must give the priest another five <i>sela</i>. <b>And the Rabbis say:</b> The owner <b>does not bear</b> financial <b>responsibility.</b> This is <b>like</b> the case of money designated for <b>redemption of second-tithe</b> produce, where once the owner designates the money for redemption, the produce is desanctified. <b>Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Tzadok testified about</b> a lamb designated for <b>redemption of a firstborn donkey that died, that the priest has nothing here,</b> i.e., in such a case, as the firstborn donkey has already been redeemed, and the owner no longer bears financial responsibility for the dead lamb, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. If after the lamb was designated, <b>the firstborn donkey died, Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> The donkey <b>must be buried, and</b> the owner is <b>permitted to</b> derive <b>benefit from the lamb. And the Rabbis say:</b> It <b>does not need to be buried, and the lamb</b> is given <b>to the priest.</b>", | |
| "If <b>one did not wish to redeem</b> the firstborn donkey, <b>he breaks its neck from behind and buries it. The mitzva of redeeming</b> the firstborn donkey <b>takes precedence over the mitzva of breaking the neck, as it is stated: “If you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck”</b> (Exodus 13:13). The mishna proceeds to enumerate other mitzvot in which one option takes precedence over another. <b>The mitzva of designating</b> a Hebrew maidservant to be betrothed to her master <b>takes precedence over the mitzva of redeeming</b> the maidservant from her master with money, <b>as it is stated:</b> “If she does not please her master, <b>who has not betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed”</b> (Exodus 21:8). <b>The mitzva of levirate marriage takes precedence over the mitzva of <i>ḥalitza</i>,</b> which dissolves the levirate bond, as it is stated: “And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife” (Deuteronomy 25:7). The mishna adds: This was the case <b>initially, when</b> people <b>would intend</b> that their performance of levirate marriage be <b>for the sake of the mitzva. But now that they do not intend</b> that their performance of levirate marriage be <b>for the sake of the mitzva,</b> but rather for reasons such as the beauty of the <i>yevama</i> or for financial gain, the Sages <b>said</b> that <b>the mitzva of <i>ḥalitza</i> takes precedence over the mitzva of levirate marriage.</b> With regard to a non-kosher animal that was consecrated to the Temple, <b>the mitzva of redemption by the owner</b> who consecrated it <b>takes precedence over</b> redemption by <b>any</b> other <b>person, as it is stated:</b> “And if it is of a non-kosher animal…<b>and if it is not redeemed, it shall be sold according to your valuation”</b> (Leviticus 27:27)." | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "With regard to <b>one who purchases the fetus of a cow</b> that <b>belongs to a gentile; one who sells</b> the fetus of his cow <b>to</b> a gentile, <b>even though one is not permitted</b> to sell a large animal to a gentile; <b>one who enters into a partnership with</b> a gentile with regard to a cow or its fetus; <b>one who receives</b> a cow <b>from</b> a gentile to tend to it in exchange for partnership in its offspring; <b>and one who gives</b> his cow to a gentile <b>in receivership,</b> so that the gentile owns a share of the cow’s offspring; in all of these cases, one is <b>exempt from</b> the obligation of redeeming <b>the firstborn</b> offspring, <b>as it is stated:</b> “I sanctified to Me all the firstborn <b>in Israel,</b> both man and animal” (Numbers 3:13), indicating that the mitzva is incumbent upon the Jewish people, <b>but not upon others.</b> If the firstborn belongs even partially to a gentile, the sanctity of firstborn does not apply to it. The mishna continues: <b>The priests and the Levites are obligated</b> in the mitzva, i.e., their animals have firstborn sanctity, <b>as they were not exempted from</b> the mitzva of the male <b>firstborn of a kosher animal; rather,</b> they were exempted only <b>from redemption of the</b> firstborn <b>son and from</b> the redemption of <b>the firstborn donkey.</b>", | |
| "<b>All sacrificial</b> animals in <b>which a permanent blemish preceded their consecration</b> do not assume inherent sanctity and only their value is consecrated, <b>and</b> once <b>they were redeemed,</b> they <b>are obligated in</b> the mitzva of <b>a firstborn,</b> i.e., their offspring are subject to being counted a firstborn, <b>and in the</b> priestly <b>gifts</b> of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, <b>and they can emerge</b> from their sacred status and assume complete <b>non-sacred</b> status in order <b>to be shorn and to be utilized for labor.</b> And <b>their offspring and their milk are permitted after their redemption.</b> <b>And one who slaughters them outside</b> the Temple courtyard is <b>exempt</b> from <i>karet</i>, <b>and</b> those animals <b>do not render</b> an animal that was <b>a substitute</b> for them consecrated. <b>And if</b> these animals <b>died</b> before they were redeemed, <b>they may be redeemed</b> and fed to dogs, and they do not require burial, <b>except for the firstborn and the</b> animal <b>tithe.</b> With regard to these two types of offerings, even if they were blemished before they became consecrated they assume inherent sanctity, like other offerings that were consecrated and subsequently became blemished.", | |
| "<b>And all</b> sacrificial animals <b>whose consecration preceded their blemish, or</b> who had <b>a temporary blemish</b> prior <b>to their consecration and afterward developed a permanent blemish and they were redeemed, they are exempt from,</b> i.e., their offspring are not counted, <b>a firstborn, and from the gifts</b> of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, <b>and they do not</b> completely <b>emerge</b> from their sacred status and assume <b>non-sacred</b> status in order <b>to be shorn and to be utilized for labor.</b> And <b>their offspring,</b> which were conceived prior to redemption, <b>and their milk, are prohibited after their redemption. And one who slaughters them outside</b> the Temple courtyard is <b>liable</b> to receive <i>karet</i>, <b>and</b> those animals <b>render</b> an animal that was <b>a substitute</b> for them consecrated. <b>And if</b> these animals <b>died</b> before they were redeemed, they may not be redeemed and fed to dogs; rather, <b>they must be buried.</b>", | |
| "With regard to <b>one who receives</b> animals as part of <b>a guaranteed investment from a gentile,</b> i.e., the Jew receives the animals to raise them and commits to pay a fixed price at a later date even if they die or their value decreases, and the offspring born in the interim are divided between the gentile and the Jew, <b>their</b> direct <b>offspring are exempt</b> from the mitzva of the firstborn if they give birth to a male, but <b>the offspring of their</b> direct <b>offspring are obligated</b> in the mitzva of the firstborn if they gave birth to a male. If the Jew <b>established their offspring in place of their mothers</b> for collection in case the mothers die, <b>the offspring of</b> their direct <b>offspring are exempt and the offspring of the offspring of</b> their direct <b>offspring are obligated. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even until ten</b> generations, the offspring are <b>exempt, as they</b> all serve <b>as a guarantee for the gentile,</b> because if he does not receive the fixed payment for the animal, he will collect his debt from any offspring born to it or its offspring.", | |
| "<b>A ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts and a goat that gave birth to a ewe of sorts are exempt</b> from the mitzva of the <b>firstborn. And if</b> the offspring <b>has some of the characteristics</b> of its mother, it is <b>obligated</b> in the mitzva of firstborn.", | |
| "In the case of <b>a ewe that had not</b> previously <b>given birth, and it gave birth to two males and both their heads emerged as one, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Both of them</b> are given <b>to the priest, as it is stated</b> in the plural: “Every firstborn that you have of animals, <b>the males shall be to the Lord”</b> (Exodus 13:12). <b>And the Rabbis say:</b> It is <b>impossible</b> for two events <b>to coincide precisely,</b> i.e., their births were not at precisely the same time. <b>Rather,</b> one preceded the other, and therefore <b>one</b> of the males is given <b>to</b> the owner <b>and one to the priest.</b> <b>Rabbi Tarfon says: The priest chooses the better</b> of the two. <b>Rabbi Akiva says: They assess</b> the value of the lambs <b>between them</b> and the priest takes the leaner of the two, as will be explained in the Gemara. <b>And</b> with regard to <b>the second</b> lamb that remains in the possession of the owner, since he may not partake of it due to its uncertain status as a firstborn, it <b>must graze until it becomes blemished,</b> at which point he may slaughter and eat it. <b>And</b> when he slaughters the animal he is <b>obligated to</b> have <b>the gifts</b> of the priesthood taken from it, i.e., the gifts that one is required to give a priest from a non-sacred animal: The foreleg, the jaw, and the maw. <b>And Rabbi Yosei deems</b> him <b>exempt</b> from giving those gifts. If <b>one of</b> the two born together <b>died, Rabbi Tarfon says:</b> The priest and the owner <b>divide</b> the remaining lamb. <b>Rabbi Akiva says:</b> Since there is uncertainty to whom it belongs, it remains in the possession of the owner, as <b>the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.</b> If <b>a male and a female</b> offspring were born together, everyone agrees that <b>the priest has nothing here.</b>", | |
| "If <b>one’s two ewes had not</b> previously <b>given birth and they gave birth to two males, both of them</b> are given <b>to the priest,</b> as each is its mother’s firstborn. If one gave birth to <b>a male and</b> the other to <b>a female, the male</b> is given <b>to the priest,</b> as it is its mother’s firstborn. If they gave birth to <b>two males and a female, one</b> of the males is kept <b>by him and one</b> is given <b>to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: The priest chooses the better</b> of the two. <b>Rabbi Akiva says: They assess</b> the value of the lambs <b>between them,</b> and the priest takes the leaner of the two. <b>And the second</b> lamb must <b>graze until it becomes blemished,</b> at which point the owner may slaughter and eat it. <b>And</b> when the owner slaughters the animal, he is <b>obligated to</b> have <b>gifts</b> of the priesthood, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, taken from it. <b>Rabbi Yosei deems</b> him <b>exempt</b> from giving the gifts. If <b>one of</b> the two born together <b>died, Rabbi Tarfon says:</b> The priest and the owner <b>divide</b> the value of the remaining lamb. <b>Rabbi Akiva says:</b> Since there is uncertainty to whom it belongs, it remains in the possession of the owner, as <b>the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.</b> If they gave birth to <b>two females and a male or</b> to <b>two males and two females, the priest has nothing here,</b> as perhaps both ewes gave birth to females first.", | |
| "If <b>one</b> of his ewes <b>had</b> previously <b>given birth and one had not</b> previously <b>given birth, and they gave birth to two males, one</b> of the males is kept <b>by him and one</b> is given <b>to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: The priest chooses the better</b> of the two. <b>Rabbi Akiva says: They assess</b> the value of the lambs <b>between them</b> and the priest takes the leaner of the two. <b>And the second</b> lamb must <b>graze until it becomes blemished,</b> at which point he may slaughter and eat it. <b>And</b> when he slaughters the animal he <b>is obligated to</b> have <b>gifts</b> of the priesthood taken from it. <b>Rabbi Yosei deems</b> him <b>exempt</b> him from giving those gifts, <b>as Rabbi Yosei says:</b> With regard to <b>any</b> animal <b>whose replacements are in the possession of a priest,</b> its owner <b>is exempt from</b> the mitzva of giving <b>the</b> priestly <b>gifts. And Rabbi Meir deems</b> him <b>obligated</b> to give the gifts. If <b>one of</b> the animals <b>died, Rabbi Tarfon says:</b> The priest and the owner <b>divide</b> the value of the remaining lamb. <b>Rabbi Akiva says:</b> Since there is uncertainty to whom it belongs, it remains in the possession of the owner, as <b>the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.</b> If <b>a male and a female</b> offspring were born together, everyone agrees that <b>the priest has nothing here,</b> as perhaps the one that had already given birth bore the male, and the one that had not given birth bore the female, in which case neither of the animals would have firstborn status.", | |
| "With regard to an animal <b>born by caesarean section and</b> the offspring <b>that follows it,</b> since there is uncertainty whether each is a firstborn, neither is given to the priest. <b>Rabbi Tarfon says: Both of them must graze until they become unfit, and they may be eaten in their blemished</b> state <b>by their owner. Rabbi Akiva says: Neither of them is firstborn; the first because it is not</b> the one <b>that opens the womb</b> (see Exodus 13:12), as this animal did not itself open the womb, <b>and the second because</b> the <b>other</b> one <b>preceded it.</b>" | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "In the case of <b>one who purchases</b> a female <b>animal from a gentile and does not know whether it had</b> previously <b>given birth</b> or <b>whether it had not</b> previously <b>given birth,</b> and after the purchase the animal gave birth to a male, <b>Rabbi Yishmael says:</b> If the mother was <b>a goat within its first year</b> the male offspring <b>certainly</b> is given <b>to the priest,</b> as it definitely never gave birth previously. <b>From that</b> point <b>forward,</b> i.e., if the mother is older than that, its offspring’s status as a firstborn is <b>uncertain.</b> If it was <b>a ewe within its second year</b> the male offspring <b>certainly</b> is given <b>to the priest; from that</b> point <b>forward</b> an offspring’s status is <b>uncertain.</b> If it was <b>a cow or a donkey within its third year</b> the male offspring <b>certainly</b> is given <b>to the priest; from that</b> point <b>forward</b> the offspring’s status is <b>uncertain.</b> <b>Rabbi Akiva said to him: Were an animal exempted only by</b> giving birth to <b>an offspring</b> and in no other manner the <i>halakha</i> would be <b>in accordance with your statement. But</b> the Sages <b>said: An indication of the offspring in a small animal</b> is <b>a murky discharge</b> from the womb, which indicates the animal had been pregnant, and therefore exempts subsequent births from the mitzva of the firstborn. The indication <b>in a large</b> animal is the emergence of <b>an afterbirth, and</b> the indication <b>in a woman</b> is <b>a fetal sac or an afterbirth.</b> Since these can be produced even within a year, it cannot be assumed that an animal in its first year is definitely subject to the mitzva of the firstborn. Rabbi Akiva continues: Rather, <b>this is the principle:</b> In <b>any</b> case <b>where it is known that</b> the animal <b>had</b> previously <b>given birth, the priest has nothing here. And</b> in <b>any</b> case <b>where it is known that</b> the animal <b>had not</b> previously <b>given birth, that</b> is given <b>to the priest. And if it is uncertain, it may be eaten in its blemished</b> state <b>by the owner.</b> <b>Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says:</b> In the case of <b>a large animal that expelled a mass of</b> congealed <b>blood, that</b> mass <b>must be buried.</b> The reason is that perhaps there was a male fetus there which was consecrated as a firstborn when it emerged, <b>and</b> the animal <b>is exempt from</b> having any future offspring counted <b>a firstborn.</b>", | |
| "<b>Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:</b> In the case of <b>one who purchases a nursing</b> female <b>animal from a gentile, he</b> does <b>not</b> need <b>to be concerned,</b> i.e., take into account the possibility, that <b>perhaps it was</b> nursing <b>the offspring of another</b> animal. Rather, the buyer may assume it had previously given birth. In the case of one who <b>enters amid his flock and sees</b> mother animals <b>that gave birth for the first time</b> that were <b>nursing, and</b> also sees mother animals <b>that gave birth not for the first time</b> that were also <b>nursing, he</b> does <b>not</b> need <b>to be concerned</b> that <b>perhaps the offspring of this</b> animal <b>came to that</b> animal to be nursed, or that <b>perhaps the offspring of that</b> animal <b>came to this</b> animal to be nursed.", | |
| "<b>Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says:</b> Since it is prohibited by Torah law to shear a firstborn, as it states: “And you shall not shear the firstborn of your flock” (Deuteronomy 15:19), <b>one who is slaughtering a firstborn,</b> and must clear hair or wool from the area of the neck in order to facilitate proper slaughter, <b>clears space</b> by uprooting the hair <b>with a cleaver [<i>bekofitz</i>] from here and from there,</b> on either side of the neck, although he thereby <b>plucks</b> out <b>the hair.</b> He may clear space in this manner <b>provided that he does not move</b> the plucked hair <b>from its place;</b> it must remain intermingled with the rest of the hair so it will appear that he did not shear the animal. <b>And likewise, one plucks the hair</b> to enable one of the Sages <b>to examine the place of a blemish</b> and thereby determine whether it is permitted to slaughter the firstborn outside the Temple.", | |
| "With regard to <b>the hair of a blemished firstborn</b> animal <b>that shed</b> from the animal, <b>and which one placed in a compartment</b> for safekeeping, <b>and thereafter he slaughtered</b> the animal; given that after the animal dies he is permitted to derive benefit from the hair the animal had on its body when it died, what is the halakhic status of hair that shed from the animal while it was alive? <b>Akavya ben Mahalalel deems</b> its use <b>permitted,</b> <b>and the Rabbis deem</b> its use <b>prohibited;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei said to him:</b> It was <b>not with regard to that</b> case <b>that Akavya ben Mahalalel deemed</b> use of the wool permitted. <b>Rather,</b> it was in the case of <b>the hair of a blemished</b> firstborn animal <b>that shed</b> from the animal <b>which one placed in a compartment and thereafter</b> the animal <b>died.</b> It was <b>in that</b> case that <b>Akavya ben Mahalalel deems</b> use of the wool <b>permitted, and the Rabbis deem</b> its use <b>prohibited</b> even after its death. With regard to <b>wool that is dangling from a firstborn</b> animal, i.e., which was not completely shed, <b>that which appears</b> to be part <b>of the fleece</b> is <b>permitted</b> when the animal is shorn after its death, <b>and that which does not appear</b> to be part <b>of the fleece</b> is <b>prohibited.</b>" | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "<b>Until when must an Israelite tend to</b> and raise <b>a firstborn</b> animal before giving it to the priest? <b>With regard to a small animal,</b> e.g., a sheep or goat, it is <b>thirty days, and with regard to a large animal,</b> e.g., cattle, it is <b>fifty days. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a small animal,</b> it is <b>three months.</b> If <b>the priest said to</b> the owner <b>within that period: Give it to me, that</b> owner <b>may not give it to him. And if it is a blemished</b> firstborn <b>and</b> the priest <b>said to him: Give it to me so I may eat it,</b> it is <b>permitted</b> for the owner to give it to him. <b>And at the time</b> that <b>the Temple</b> is standing, <b>if it is unblemished</b> and the priest <b>said to him: Give it to me and I will sacrifice it,</b> it is <b>permitted</b> for the owner to give it to him. <b>The firstborn</b> animal <b>is eaten year by year,</b> i.e., within its first year, <b>whether</b> it is <b>blemished</b> or <b>whether</b> it is <b>unblemished, as it is stated: “You shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year”</b> (Deuteronomy 15:20). ", | |
| "If <b>a blemish developed within its</b> first <b>year,</b> it is permitted for the owner <b>to maintain</b> the animal for the <b>entire twelve months.</b> If a blemish developed <b>after twelve months</b> have passed, it is permitted for the owner <b>to maintain</b> the animal for <b>only thirty days.</b> ", | |
| "In the case of <b>one who slaughters the firstborn</b> animal <b>and</b> only then <b>shows its blemish</b> to an expert to determine whether it is a blemish, and it was established by the expert that it is in fact a blemish that renders its slaughter permitted, <b>Rabbi Yehuda deems</b> it <b>permitted</b> for a priest to derive benefit from the firstborn. <b>Rabbi Meir says: Since it was slaughtered not according to</b> the ruling of <b>an expert,</b> it is <b>prohibited.</b> ", | |
| "In a case involving <b>one who is not an expert, and he examined the firstborn</b> animal <b>and it was slaughtered on the basis of his</b> ruling, <b>that</b> animal <b>must be buried,</b> and the non-expert <b>must pay</b> compensation to the priest <b>from his property.</b> Apropos the previous mishna, which taught that a judge who was an expert for the court and who erred is exempt from payment, this mishna teaches: There was <b>an incident involving a cow whose womb was removed,</b> and when Rabbi Tarfon was consulted he ruled that it is an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [<i>tereifa</i>], which is forbidden for consumption. <b>And</b> based on the ruling of <b>Rabbi Tarfon,</b> the questioner <b>fed it to the dogs. And the incident came before the Sages</b> of the court <b>in Yavne, and they ruled</b> that such an animal is <b>permitted</b> and is not a <i>tereifa</i>. <b>And Theodosius [<i>Todos</i>] the doctor said: A cow or pig does not emerge from Alexandria of Egypt unless</b> the residents <b>sever its womb so that it will not give birth</b> in the future. The breeds of cows and pigs in Alexandria were of exceptional quality and the people of Alexandria did not want them reproduced elsewhere. The fact that these animals lived long lives after their wombs were removed proves that the hysterectomy did not render them <i>tereifot</i>. Upon hearing this, <b>Rabbi Tarfon said: Your donkey is gone, Tarfon,</b> as he believed he was required to compensate the owner for the cow that he ruled to be a <i>tereifa</i>. <b>Rabbi Akiva said to him: Rabbi Tarfon, you are an expert for</b> the <b>court, and any expert for</b> the <b>court is exempt from</b> liability <b>to pay.</b> ", | |
| "In the case of an individual <b>who takes payment to be one who examines firstborn</b> animals to determine whether they are blemished, <b>one may not slaughter</b> the firstborn <b>on the basis of his</b> ruling, <b>unless he was an expert</b> <b>like Ila in Yavne, whom the Sages in Yavne permitted to take</b> a wage of <b>four <i>issar</i> for</b> issuing a ruling concerning <b>a small animal and six</b> <i>issar</i> <b>for</b> issuing a ruling concerning <b>a large animal.</b> They permitted this provided that he would be paid <b>whether</b> it turned out that the firstborn was <b>unblemished or whether</b> it was <b>blemished.</b>", | |
| "In the case of <b>one who takes his wages to judge</b> cases, <b>his rulings are void.</b> In the case of one who takes wages <b>to testify, his testimonies are void.</b> With regard to one who takes wages <b>to sprinkle</b> the purification waters of the red heifer upon one who contracted impurity imparted by a corpse, <b>and</b> one who takes wages <b>to sanctify</b> those waters, the halakhic status of <b>his water is</b> that of <b>cave water, and</b> the status of <b>his ashes is</b> that of mere <b>burnt ashes.</b> Although taking actual wages is prohibited, <b>if</b> the one examining the firstborn, or the judge, or the witness, <b>was a priest,</b> and the one who requires his services <b>rendered him impure</b> and prevented him <b>from</b> partaking of <b>his <i>teruma</i>,</b> that person <b>must provide</b> the priest <b>with food, drink, and</b> oil for <b>smearing</b> on his body from his own non-sacred property. <b>And likewise if</b> the one examining the firstborn, or the judge, or the witness, <b>was an elderly person,</b> the one who requires his services <b>transports him on a donkey. And</b> in all these cases, although it is prohibited to take wages, the one who requires his services <b>gives him his wages like</b> the wages of <b>a laborer,</b> as he was unable to perform his usual labor that day.", | |
| "In the case of <b>one who is suspect with regard to firstborn</b> animals of slaughtering them and selling their meat when it is prohibited to do so, <b>one may neither purchase</b> meat <b>from him,</b> including <b>even deer meat, nor</b> may one purchase from him <b>hides that are not tanned. Rabbi Eliezer says: One</b> may <b>purchase hides of female animals from him,</b> as the <i>halakhot</i> of firstborn animals are in effect only with regard to males. <b>And one</b> may <b>not purchase bleached or dirty wool from him. But one</b> may <b>purchase spun</b> thread <b>from him, and</b> all the more so may one purchase <b>garments</b> from him.", | |
| "In the case of <b>one who is suspect with regard to the Sabbatical</b> Year, i.e., of sowing or engaging in commerce with Sabbatical-Year produce, <b>one may not purchase flax from him, and</b> this applies <b>even</b> to <b>combed</b> flax, in which much labor and exertion was invested. <b>But one</b> may <b>purchase spun</b> thread <b>and woven</b> fabric <b>from</b> such individuals.", | |
| " In the case of <b>one who is suspect with regard to selling <i>teruma</i> under the guise of non-sacred</b> produce, <b>one</b> may <b>not purchase even water and salt from him;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: One</b> may <b>not purchase from him any</b> item <b>that has relevance to <i>teruma</i> and tithes.</b> However, one may purchase water and salt from him, as <i>teruma</i> and tithes do not apply to them.", | |
| "<b>One who is suspect with regard to the Sabbatical</b> Year <b>is not suspect with regard to tithes;</b> and likewise, <b>one who is suspect with regard to tithes is not suspect with regard to the Sabbatical</b> Year. <b>One who is suspect with regard to this,</b> the Sabbatical Year, <b>or with regard to that,</b> tithes, is <b>suspect with regard to</b> selling ritually impure foods as though they were <b>ritually pure</b> items. <b>But there are those who are suspect with regard to ritually pure</b> items <b>who are not suspect with regard to this,</b> the Sabbatical Year, <b>nor with regard to that,</b> tithes. <b>This is the principle</b> with regard to these matters: Anyone <b>who is suspect with regard to</b> a specific <b>matter</b> may <b>neither adjudicate</b> cases <b>nor testify</b> in cases involving that matter." | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "With regard to <b>all disqualified consecrated</b> animals that were disqualified for sacrifice due to blemishes and were redeemed, all <b>benefit</b> accrued from <b>their</b> sale belongs <b>to the Temple</b> treasury. In order to ensure that the Temple treasury will not suffer a loss, these animals <b>are sold in the butchers’ market [<i>ba’itliz</i>] and slaughtered in the butchers’ market,</b> where the demand is great and the price is consequently higher. <b>And</b> their meat <b>is weighed</b> and sold <b>by the <i>litra</i>,</b> in the manner that non-sacred meat is sold. This is the <i>halakha</i> with regard to all consecrated animals <b>except for the firstborn</b> offering <b>and</b> an animal <b>tithe</b> offering. When these become blemished and their slaughter is permitted, they are sold and slaughtered only in the owner’s house and are not weighed; rather, they are sold by estimate. The reason is <b>that</b> all <b>benefit</b> accrued from <b>their</b> sale belongs <b>to the owner,</b> i.e., the priest in the case of the firstborn and the owner in the case of the animal tithe offering. It is not permitted to treat disqualified consecrated animals as one treats non-sacred animals merely to guarantee that the owner will receive the optimal price. This is in contrast to <b>disqualified consecrated</b> animals, where all <b>benefit</b> accrued from <b>their</b> sale belongs <b>to the Temple</b> treasury, and therefore the animal is sold in the market to ensure that the optimal price is received. <b>And</b> although the meat of the firstborn is not weighed and sold by the <i>litra</i>, nevertheless, if one has non-sacred meat weighing one hundred dinars, <b>one may weigh one portion</b> of non-sacred meat <b>against one portion</b> of the meat <b>of the firstborn,</b> because that is unlike the manner in which non-sacred meat is weighed.", | |
| "<b>Beit Shammai say: An Israelite cannot be counted with the priest to</b> partake of a blemished <b>firstborn. And Beit Hillel deem</b> it <b>permitted</b> for him to partake of it, <b>and</b> they deem it permitted <b>even</b> for <b>a gentile</b> to partake of a blemished firstborn. With regard to <b>a firstborn</b> animal <b>that was congested with</b> excess <b>blood, even</b> if the animal will <b>die</b> if one does not let the excess blood, <b>one may not let its blood,</b> as this might cause a blemish, and it is prohibited to cause a blemish on consecrated animals. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: One may let</b> the blood <b>provided that he will not cause a blemish</b> while doing so, <b>and if he caused a blemish, the animal may not be slaughtered on</b> account of <b>that</b> blemish. Since he was the cause of the blemish, he may not slaughter the animal until it develops a different, unrelated blemish. <b>Rabbi Shimon says: One may let</b> the blood <b>even if he</b> thereby <b>causes a blemish</b> in the animal.", | |
| "In the case of <b>one who slits [<i>hatzorem</i>] the ear of a firstborn</b> offering, <b>that</b> person <b>may never slaughter</b> that animal. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say:</b> If <b>another blemish</b> later <b>develops in</b> the firstborn, <b>he may slaughter</b> the animal <b>on</b> account of that second blemish. There was <b>an incident involving an old ram whose hair was</b> long and <b>dangling,</b> because it was a firstborn offering. <b>And one</b> Roman <b>quaestor [<i>kastor</i>] saw it and said</b> to its owner: <b>What is the status [<i>tivo</i>] of this</b> animal that you allowed it to grow old and you did not slaughter it? <b>They said to him:</b> It <b>is a firstborn</b> offering, <b>and</b> therefore <b>it may be slaughtered only if it has a blemish.</b> The quaestor <b>took a dagger [<i>pigom</i>] and slit its ear. And the incident came before</b> the <b>Sages</b> for a ruling, <b>and they deemed</b> its slaughter <b>permitted. And after</b> the Sages <b>deemed</b> its slaughter <b>permitted,</b> the quaestor <b>went and slit the ears of other firstborn</b> offerings, <b>but</b> in these cases the Sages <b>deemed</b> their slaughter <b>prohibited,</b> despite the fact that they were now blemished. <b>One time children were playing in the field and they tied the tails of lambs to each other, and the tail of one of them was severed, and it was a firstborn</b> offering. <b>And the incident came before the Sages</b> for a ruling <b>and they deemed</b> its slaughter <b>permitted.</b> The people who <b>saw that they deemed</b> its slaughter <b>permitted went and tied the tails of other firstborn</b> offerings, <b>and</b> the Sages <b>deemed</b> their slaughter <b>prohibited. This</b> is <b>the principle:</b> With regard to <b>any</b> blemish <b>that is</b> caused <b>intentionally,</b> the animal’s slaughter is <b>prohibited;</b> if the blemish is caused <b>unintentionally,</b> the animal’s slaughter is <b>permitted.</b>", | |
| "If one’s <b>firstborn</b> offering <b>was pursuing him,</b> and <b>he kicked</b> the animal <b>and caused a blemish in it, he may slaughter</b> the animal <b>on</b> account of <b>that</b> blemish. With regard to <b>all the blemishes that are capable of being brought about by a person, Israelite shepherds are deemed credible</b> to testify that the blemishes were not caused intentionally. But <b>priest-shepherds are not deemed credible,</b> as they are the beneficiaries if the firstborn is blemished. <b>Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:</b> A priest is <b>deemed credible</b> to testify <b>about</b> the firstborn <b>of another, but is not deemed credible</b> to testify <b>about</b> the firstborn belonging <b>to him. Rabbi Meir says:</b> A priest <b>who is suspect about the matter</b> of causing a blemish may <b>neither adjudicate nor testify</b> in cases involving that matter, even on behalf of another.", | |
| "<b>A priest is deemed credible to say: I showed this firstborn</b> animal to an expert <b>and</b> he ruled that <b>it is blemished.</b> <b>Everyone is deemed credible</b> to testify <b>about the blemishes of</b> an animal <b>tithe</b> offering, even the owner who is the beneficiary of a ruling that it is blemished. With regard to <b>a firstborn</b> animal <b>whose eye was blinded or whose foreleg was severed or whose hind leg was broken,</b> all of which obviously render the animal permanently blemished, that animal <b>may be slaughtered on the basis of</b> the ruling of <b>three</b> regular Jews <b>who attend the synagogue,</b> and it does not require a ruling by one of the Sages. <b>Rabbi Yosei</b> disagrees and <b>says: Even if there is</b> a court of <b>twenty-three</b> Sages <b>there, it may be slaughtered only on the basis of</b> the ruling of <b>an expert</b> in judging blemishes.", | |
| "In the case of <b>one who slaughters a firstborn</b> animal and sells its meat, <b>and it was discovered that he did not</b> initially <b>show it</b> to one of the Sages, the <i>halakha</i> is that it was actually prohibited to derive any benefit from the meat. In that case, <b>what</b> the buyers <b>ate, they ate, and</b> the Sages penalized the seller in that <b>he must return the money to them,</b> which they paid for the meat that they ate. <b>And</b> with regard to <b>that which they did not eat,</b> that <b>meat must be buried, and he must return the money</b> that they paid for the meat that they did not eat. <b>And likewise,</b> in the case of <b>one who slaughters a cow and sells it, and it was discovered that it is a <i>tereifa</i>, what</b> the buyers <b>ate, they ate, and what they did not eat, they must return the meat to</b> the seller, who may sell it to a gentile or feed it to the dogs, <b>and he must return the money to</b> the buyers. If the buyers <b>sold it to gentiles or cast it to the dogs, they pay</b> the seller <b>the value of a <i>tereifa</i>,</b> which is less than the value of kosher meat, and the seller refunds the balance to the buyers." | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "<b>For these blemishes, one may slaughter the firstborn</b> animal outside the Temple: If the firstborn’s <b>ear was damaged</b> and lacking <b>from the cartilage [<i>haḥasḥus</i>], but not</b> if <b>the skin</b> was damaged; and likewise, if the ear <b>was split, although it is not lacking;</b> or if the ear <b>was pierced</b> with a hole <b>the size of a bitter vetch,</b> which is a type of legume; <b>or</b> if it was an ear <b>that</b> is <b>desiccated. What is a desiccated</b> ear that is considered a blemish? It is <b>any</b> ear <b>that</b> if <b>it is pierced it does not discharge a drop of blood. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: Desiccated</b> means that the ear is so dry <b>that it will crumble</b> if one touches it.", | |
| "For these blemishes of the eye, one may slaughter the firstborn animal outside the Temple: <b>The eyelid that was pierced,</b> an eyelid <b>that was damaged</b> and is lacking, or an eyelid <b>that was split;</b> and likewise, one may slaughter a firstborn animal outside the Temple <b>if</b> there was <b>in his eye a cataract, a <i>tevallul</i>,</b> or a growth in the shape of <b>a snail, a snake,</b> or <b>a berry</b> that covers the pupil. <b>What is a <i>tevallul</i>?</b> It is <b>a white</b> thread <b>that bisects the iris and enters the black</b> pupil. If it is <b>a black</b> thread that bisects the iris and <b>enters the white</b> of the eye it <b>is not a blemish.</b>", | |
| "<b>Pale spots</b> on the eye <b>and tears</b> streaming from the eye <b>that are constant</b> are blemishes that enable the slaughter of the firstborn. <b>Which are the pale spots that are constant?</b> They are <b>any</b> spots <b>that persisted</b> for <b>eighty days. Rabbi Ḥananya ben Antigonus said: One examines it three times within eighty days.</b> Only if the spots are found during all three examinations are they considered constant. <b>And these are the constant tears,</b> i.e., this is how it is known whether the blemish is temporary or permanent: In a case where the animal <b>ate,</b> for medicinal purposes, <b>moist</b> fodder <b>and dry</b> fodder <b>from</b> a field watered exclusively with <b>rain,</b> or if the animal ate <b>moist</b> fodder <b>and dry</b> fodder <b>from</b> an <b>irrigated</b> field, <b>or</b> even if the animal did not eat them together but <b>ate the dry</b> fodder <b>and thereafter</b> ate <b>the moist</b> fodder, and the condition of constant tears was not healed, <b>it is not a blemish.</b> It is not a blemish <b>unless</b> the animal <b>eats the moist</b> fodder <b>and thereafter</b> eats <b>the dry</b> fodder and is not thereby healed.", | |
| "For these additional blemishes, one may slaughter a firstborn animal outside the Temple: <b>Its nose that was pierced, or that was damaged</b> and is lacking, <b>or that was split.</b> Likewise, <b>its lip that was pierced,</b> or <b>that was damaged,</b> or <b>that was split</b> is considered a blemish. The mishna lists additional blemishes that permit the slaughter of the firstborn: <b>The external gums that were damaged</b> and lacking <b>or that were scratched,</b> and likewise, <b>the internal</b> gums <b>that were extracted. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: One does not examine from the double teeth,</b> i.e., the large molars that appear like two teeth, <b>and inward, and</b> one does <b>not</b> examine <b>even the</b> place of the <b>double teeth</b> themselves. This is because even if they were extracted, it is a concealed blemish, and it does not permit the slaughter of the firstborn. ", | |
| "The mishna details additional blemishes that enable the slaughter of firstborn animals: If <b>the pouch [<i>hazoven</i>]</b> in which the genitals of the firstborn are concealed, or if <b>the genitalia of a female sacrificial</b> animal, <b>were damaged</b> and lacking; if <b>the tail was damaged from the tailbone, but not</b> if it was damaged <b>from the joint,</b> i.e., one of the joints between the vertebrae, because it heals; <b>or</b> in a case <b>where the end of the tail is split,</b> i.e., <b>the skin and the flesh were removed and the bone remained</b> exposed; <b>or</b> in a case <b>where there is a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one joint and another joint;</b> these are all blemishes. ", | |
| "The firstborn animal may be slaughtered if <b>it has no testicles or</b> if <b>it has only one testicle. Rabbi Yishmael says: If</b> the animal <b>has two</b> scrotal <b>sacs,</b> it can be assumed that <b>it has two testicles;</b> if the animal <b>does not have two</b> scrotal <b>sacs,</b> it can be assumed that <b>it has only one testicle. Rabbi Akiva says:</b> The matter can be ascertained: <b>One seats</b> the animal <b>on its rump and mashes</b> the sac; <b>if there is a testicle, ultimately</b> it is going <b>to emerge.</b> There was <b>an incident where one mashed</b> the sac <b>and</b> the testicle <b>did not emerge.</b> Then, the animal <b>was slaughtered and</b> the testicle <b>was discovered attached to the loins. And Rabbi Akiva permitted</b> the consumption of its flesh, as the testicle had not previously emerged, <b>and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri prohibited</b> its consumption. ", | |
| "An animal <b>with five legs, or</b> one <b>that has only three, or</b> one <b>whose</b> hooves on its <b>legs were closed like</b> those <b>of a donkey</b> and not split, <b>or the <i>shaḥul</i>, or the <i>kasul</i></b> may be slaughtered. <b>What is a <i>shaḥul</i>?</b> It is an animal with <b>a thighbone that was dislocated. And</b> what is <b>a <i>kasul</i>?</b> It is an animal whose build is asymmetrical in <b>that one of its thighs is higher</b> than the other. ", | |
| "Additional blemishes that permit the slaughter of the firstborn include those where <b>the bone of its foreleg or the bone of its hind leg was broken, even though it is not conspicuous.</b> With regard to <b>these blemishes</b> listed in this chapter, <b>Ila,</b> who was expert in blemishes of the firstborn, <b>enumerated</b> them <b>in Yavne, and the Sages deferred to his</b> expertise. <b>And</b> Ila <b>added three additional</b> blemishes, and the Sages <b>said to him: We did not hear</b> about <b>those.</b> Ila added: An animal <b>whose eye is round like</b> that <b>of a person, or whose mouth is similar to</b> that <b>of a pig, or where most of</b> the segment of <b>its tongue</b> corresponding to the segment that facilitates <b>speech</b> in the tongue of a person <b>was removed. The court that followed them said</b> with regard to each of those three blemishes: <b>That is a blemish</b> that enables the slaughter of the firstborn. ", | |
| "<b>And</b> there was <b>an incident where the lower jaw</b> of the firstborn <b>protruded beyond the upper</b> jaw, <b>and Rabban Gamliel asked the Sages</b> for a ruling, <b>and they said: That is a blemish</b> that enables the slaughter of the firstborn. With regard to <b>the ear of the kid</b> that <b>was doubled</b> and appeared like two ears, <b>the Sages said: When</b> the additional ear <b>is one bone,</b> i.e., it has its own cartilage, it is <b>a blemish; when it does not have</b> its own <b>bone it is not a blemish. Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel says:</b> In the case of <b>the tail of a kid that is similar to</b> that <b>of a pig or</b> one that is so short <b>that it does not have three joints, that is a blemish.</b> ", | |
| "<b>Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says</b> that these are blemished animals: One <b>that has a wart in its eyes; and</b> one <b>where the bone of its foreleg or hind leg was damaged; and</b> one <b>where the bone of its mouth,</b> i.e., its jaw, <b>was dislocated;</b> and an animal with <b>one of its eyes large and one small,</b> or <b>one of its ears large and one small</b> where the difference in size is detectable <b>by sight, but not</b> if it is detectable only <b>by being measured. Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> An animal is blemished if with regard to <b>its two testicles, one is as large as two of the other, but the Rabbis did not agree with his</b> opinion. ", | |
| "In the case of <b>the tail of a calf that does not reach the leg joint [<i>la’arkov</i>], the Sages said:</b> It is a blemish, because <b>all growth of calves</b> is in <b>this</b> manner:<b>As long as they grow,</b> their tails <b>are extended</b> beneath the leg joint. <b>Which is the leg joint</b> about <b>which</b> the Sages <b>spoke? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says:</b> They are referring <b>to</b> the <b>leg joint that is in the middle of the thigh.</b> <b>For these blemishes</b> enumerated in the previous <i>mishnayot</i>, <b>one slaughters the firstborn</b> outside the Temple <b>and disqualified consecrated</b> animals <b>may be redeemed on their account.</b> ", | |
| "<b>And these</b> are the blemishes <b>that one does not slaughter</b> the firstborn <b>due to them, neither in the Temple nor in</b> the rest of <b>the country: Pale spots</b> on the eye <b>and tears</b> streaming from the eye <b>that are not constant; and internal gums that were damaged but that were not extracted; and</b> an animal <b>with boils</b> that are moist inside and out <b>[<i>garav</i>]; and</b> an animal <b>with warts; and</b> an animal <b>with boils [<i>ḥazazit</i>];</b> and <b>an old or sick</b> animal, <b>or</b> one with <b>a foul odor; and</b> one <b>with which a transgression was performed,</b> e.g., it copulated with a person or was the object of bestiality; <b>and</b> one <b>that killed a person.</b> In these latter two cases, the act of bestiality or killing became known <b>on the basis</b> of the testimony <b>of one witness or on the basis of the owner. And</b> one does not slaughter <b>a <i>tumtum</i>,</b> whose sexual organs are concealed, <b>and a hermaphrodite [<i>ve’anderoginos</i>],</b> which has both male and female sexual organs, <b>neither in the Temple nor in</b> the rest of <b>the country. Rabbi Shimon says: You have no blemish greater than that,</b> and it may be slaughtered. <b>And the Rabbis say:</b> The halakhic status of a hermaphrodite <b>is not</b> that of <b>a firstborn; rather,</b> its halakhic status is that of a non-sacred animal that may <b>be shorn and utilized for labor.</b>" | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "Concerning <b>these blemishes</b> which were taught with regard to an animal, <b>whether</b> they are <b>permanent or transient, they</b> also <b>disqualify in</b> the case of <b>a person,</b> i.e., they disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service. <b>And in addition to those</b> blemishes, there are other blemishes that apply only to a priest: <b>One whose</b> head <b>is pointed,</b> narrow above and wide below; <b>and one whose</b> head <b>is turnip-like,</b> wide above and narrow below; <b>and one whose</b> head <b>is hammer-like,</b> with his forehead protruding; <b>and</b> one <b>whose head</b> has <b>an indentation; and</b> one <b>wherein the back of his head protrudes.</b> <b>And</b> with regard to <b>those with humped</b> backs, <b>Rabbi Yehuda deems</b> them <b>fit</b> for service <b>and the Rabbis deem</b> them <b>disqualified.</b>", | |
| "<b>The <i>kere’aḥ</i> is disqualified</b> from performing the Temple service. <b>What is a <i>kere’aḥ</i>?</b> It is <b>anyone who does not have a row of hair encircling</b> his head <b>from ear to ear. If he has</b> a row of hair from ear to ear, <b>that</b> person is <b>fit</b> for service. If a priest <b>has no eyebrows, or</b> if <b>he has only one eyebrow, that is the <i>gibben</i> that is stated in the Torah</b> in the list of blemished priests (see Leviticus 21:20). <b>Rabbi Dosa says:</b> A <i>gibben</i> is one <b>whose eyebrows</b> are so long that they <b>lie</b> flat and cover his eyes. <b>Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says:</b> A <i>gibben</i> is one <b>who has two backs and two spines.</b>", | |
| "<b>The <i>ḥarum</i> is disqualified</b> from performing the Temple service. <b>What is a <i>ḥarum</i>?</b> It is <b>one who</b> can <b>paint both of his eyes as one,</b> with one brushstroke, because he has a sunken nose. If <b>both of one’s eyes</b> are <b>above or both of his eyes</b> are <b>below;</b> or if <b>one of his eyes</b> is <b>above and one of his eyes</b> is <b>below;</b> or if both eyes are in the proper place but <b>he sees</b> both <b>the room</b> on the ground floor <b>and the upper story as one,</b> at the same time; and likewise those unable to <b>look at the sun; and one whose eyes are different; and one whose eyes tear constantly,</b> these are disqualified from performing the Temple service. <b>And one whose eyelashes have fallen out</b> is <b>disqualified</b> from performing the Temple service <b>due to the appearance</b> of a blemish. Unlike the others listed in this mishna, who are disqualified by Torah law, one with this condition is not disqualified by Torah law. Rather, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting a priest with such a condition to perform the Temple service.", | |
| "The mishna lists additional blemishes that disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service: If a priest’s <b>eyes are large like those of a calf or small like those of a goose;</b> if <b>his body is</b> disproportionately <b>large</b> relative <b>to his limbs or</b> disproportionately <b>small</b> relative <b>to his limbs;</b> if <b>his nose is</b> disproportionately <b>large</b> relative <b>to his limbs or</b> disproportionately <b>small</b> relative <b>to his limbs,</b> he is disqualified. And <b>the <i>tzomem</i> and the <i>tzome’a</i></b> are also disqualified. <b>What is a <i>tzome’a</i>?</b> It is <b>anyone whose ears are small. And</b> what is <b>the <i>tzomem</i>?</b> It is <b>anyone whose ears are similar to a sponge.</b> ", | |
| "If <b>his upper lip protrudes beyond the lower</b> lip or his <b>lower</b> lip <b>protrudes beyond the upper</b> lip, <b>that is a blemish. And one whose teeth fell out is disqualified due to the appearance</b> of a blemish. The mishna lists additional blemishes that disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service: One who has <b>breasts</b> so large that they <b>sag like</b> those <b>of a woman;</b> or if <b>one’s belly is swollen</b> and protrudes; or if <b>one’s navel protrudes;</b> or if one is <b>an epileptic, even</b> if he experiences seizures only <b>once in</b> a long <b>while;</b> or one <b>who is afflicted with a melancholy temper;</b> or <b>one whose scrotum is</b> unnaturally <b>long; or one whose penis is</b> unnaturally <b>long</b> is disqualified from performing the Temple service. If <b>one has no testicles, or</b> if <b>he has only one testicle, that is</b> the <b><i>mero’aḥ ashekh</i> that is stated in the Torah</b> (see Leviticus 21:20) among the blemishes that disqualify a priest from Temple service. <b>Rabbi Yishmael says:</b> A <i>mero’aḥ ashekh</i> is <b>anyone whose testicles were crushed. Rabbi Akiva says:</b> It is <b>anyone that</b> has <b>wind in his testicles,</b> i.e., they are swollen. <b>Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says:</b> <i>Mero’aḥ ashekh</i> does not refer to the testicles; rather, the reference is to <b>anyone whose appearance [<i>marav</i>] is</b> especially <b>dark [<i>ḥashukhin</i>].</b> ", | |
| "The mishna lists additional blemishes that disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service: One whose legs are crooked and bend inward, causing him to <b>knock his ankles or his knees</b> into each other as he walks, <b>and a <i>ba’al happikim</i>,</b> and <b>the <i>ikkel</i>. What is the <i>ikkel</i>?</b> It is <b>anyone who places his feet together and his knees do not knock into each other,</b> i.e., he is bowlegged. A priest with <b>a protuberance emerging</b> alongside <b>the thumb of his</b> hand or the big toe of his foot,or one <b>whose heel emerges</b> and protrudes <b>back</b> from <b>his</b> foot, or one <b>whose feet are wide like</b> those <b>of a goose</b> are all disqualified from performing the Temple service. A priest <b>whose fingers</b> or toes <b>are configured one upon the other, or</b> one whose fingers or toes are <b>attached,</b> is likewise disqualified. But if they were attached from <b>above</b> the palm of the hand or the bottom of the foot only <b>until the</b> middle <b>joint,</b> he is <b>fit.</b> If they were attached <b>below the joint,</b> higher up on the finger or toe, <b>and he cut</b> to separate them, he is <b>fit.</b> In a case where <b>there was an extra</b> finger or toe <b>on</b> his hand or foot <b>and he cut it, if</b> that extra appendage <b>contains a bone,</b> the priest is <b>disqualified</b> even after it was cut, <b>and if</b> there is <b>no</b> bone the priest is <b>fit.</b> If there was <b>an extra</b> appendage <b>on his hands and on his feet, six on each</b> for a total of <b>twenty-four, Rabbi Yehuda deems</b> the priest <b>fit and the Rabbis deem</b> him <b>disqualified.</b> With regard to one <b>who</b> is ambidextrous and <b>has control of both of his hands, Rabbi</b> Yehuda HaNasi <b>deems</b> the priest <b>disqualified,</b> as his halakhic status is like that of one who is left-handed, <b>and the Rabbis deem</b> him <b>fit.</b> Concerning <b>the <i>kushi</i>, the <i>giḥor</i>, the <i>lavkan</i>, the <i>kipe’aḥ</i>, the dwarf, the deaf-mute, the imbecile, the drunk, and</b> those <b>with ritually pure marks,</b> their conditions <b>disqualify a person</b> from performing the Temple service <b>and are valid,</b> i.e., they do not disqualify with regard to being sacrificed, <b>in</b> the case of <b>an animal. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: An imbecile among animals is not optimal</b> for sacrifice. <b>Rabbi Elazar says: Even</b> with regard to those <b>with</b> flesh or skin that <b>hangs</b> from their body, that blemish <b>disqualifies in</b> the case of <b>a person and is valid in</b> the case of <b>an animal.</b>", | |
| "<b>These</b> flaws <b>do not disqualify a person</b> from performing the Temple service, <b>but</b> they do <b>disqualify an animal</b> from being sacrificed: An animal whose mother or offspring were slaughtered that day, as slaughtering it would violate the prohibition against slaughtering the animal <b>itself and its offspring</b> on the same day; <b>a <i>tereifa</i>;</b> one <b>born by caesarean section;</b> one <b>with which a transgression</b> of bestiality <b>was performed; and one that killed a person.</b> <b>And</b> a priest <b>who marries women by a transgression,</b> e.g., a divorcée or a woman who underwent <i>ḥalitza</i>, is <b>disqualified</b> from performing the Temple service <b>until he vows</b> not to derive <b>benefit from her.</b> The vow ensures that he will divorce her promptly. <b>And</b> a priest <b>who becomes impure</b> through exposure <b>to corpses</b> is <b>disqualified</b> from performing the Temple service <b>until he accepts upon himself</b> a commitment <b>that he will no</b> longer <b>become impure</b> through exposure <b>to corpses.</b>" | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "<b>There is</b> a son who is <b>a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to</b> the requirement of redemption from <b>a priest.</b> There is another who is <b>a firstborn with regard to</b> redemption from <b>a priest but is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance.</b> There is another who is <b>a firstborn with regard to inheritance and with regard to</b> redemption from <b>a priest. And there is</b> another <b>who is not a firstborn</b> at all, <b>neither with regard to inheritance nor with regard to</b> redemption from <b>a priest.</b> <b>Which is</b> the son who is <b>a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to</b> redemption from <b>a priest?</b> It is a son <b>who came after miscarriage</b> of an underdeveloped fetus, <b>even where</b> the <b>head</b> of the underdeveloped fetus <b>emerged alive; or</b> after a fully developed <b>nine-</b>month<b>-old</b> fetus <b>whose head emerged dead.</b> The same applies to a son born to a woman <b>who</b> had previously <b>miscarried</b> a fetus that had the appearance of <b>a type of domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird,</b> as that is considered the opening of the womb. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir.</b> <b>And the Rabbis say:</b> The son is not exempted from the requirement of redemption from a priest <b>unless</b> his birth follows the birth of an animal <b>that takes the form of a person.</b> In the case of a woman <b>who miscarries</b> a fetus in the form of <b>a sandal fish or</b> from whom <b>an afterbirth or a gestational sac</b> in which <b>tissue developed</b> emerged, <b>or</b> who delivered a fetus <b>that emerged in pieces,</b> the son <b>who follows these is a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to</b> redemption from <b>a priest.</b> In the case of a son born to <b>one who did not have sons and he married a woman who had already given birth;</b> or if he married a woman who gave birth when <b>she was still</b> a Canaanite <b>maidservant and she was</b> then <b>emancipated;</b> or one who gave birth when <b>she was still a gentile and she</b> then <b>converted,</b> and <b>when</b> the maidservant or the gentile <b>came to</b> join <b>the Jewish people she gave birth</b> to a male, that son is <b>a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to</b> redemption from <b>a priest.</b> <b>Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says:</b> That son is <b>a firstborn with regard to inheritance and with regard to</b> redemption from <b>a priest, as it is stated:</b> “Whatever <b>opens the womb among</b> the children of <b>Israel”</b> (Exodus 13:2). This indicates that the halakhic status of a child born to the mother is not that of one who opens the womb <b>unless it opens the womb</b> of a woman <b>from the Jewish people.</b> In the case of <b>one who had sons and married a woman who had not given birth;</b> or if he married a woman who <b>converted while</b> she was <b>pregnant,</b> or a Canaanite maidservant who <b>was emancipated while</b> she was <b>pregnant</b> and she gave birth to a son, he is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest, as he opened his mother’s womb, but he is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance, because he is not the firstborn of his father or because halakhically he has no father. <b>And</b> likewise, if an Israelite woman <b>and</b> the daughter or wife of <b>a priest,</b> neither of whom had given birth yet, or an Israelite woman <b>and</b> the daughter or wife of <b>a Levite,</b> or an Israelite woman <b>and a woman who had already given birth,</b> all women whose sons do not require redemption from the priest, <b>gave birth</b> in the same place and it is uncertain which son was born to which mother; <b>and likewise</b> a woman <b>who did not wait three months after</b> the death of <b>her husband and she married and gave birth, and it is unknown whether</b> the child was born after a pregnancy of <b>nine months</b> and is the <b>son of the first</b> husband, or <b>whether</b> he was born after a pregnancy of <b>seven months</b> and is the <b>son of the latter</b> husband, in all these cases the child is <b>a firstborn with regard to</b> redemption from <b>a priest but is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance.</b> Due to the uncertainty, he is unable to prove he is the firstborn of either father, and therefore he is not entitled to the double portion of the firstborn. <b>Which is</b> the offspring <b>that is a firstborn</b> both <b>with regard to inheritance and with regard to</b> redemption from <b>a priest?</b> In the case of a woman <b>who miscarried a gestational sac full of water,</b> or one <b>full of blood,</b> or one <b>full of pieces of flesh;</b> or one <b>who miscarries</b> a mass <b>resembling a fish, or grasshoppers,</b> or <b>repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, or</b> one <b>who miscarries on the fortieth day</b> after conception, <b>the</b> son <b>who follows</b> any of <b>them is a firstborn with regard to inheritance and with regard to</b> redemption from <b>a priest.</b>", | |
| "In the case of a boy <b>born by caesarean section and the</b> son <b>who follows him, both of them are not firstborn, neither with regard to inheritance nor with regard to</b> redemption from <b>a priest. Rabbi Shimon says: The first</b> son is a firstborn <b>with regard to inheritance</b> if he is his father’s first son, <b>and the second</b> son is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest <b>for five <i>sela</i></b> coins, because he is the first to emerge from the womb and he emerged in the usual way.", | |
| "With regard to <b>one whose wife had not</b> previously <b>given birth and</b> then <b>gave birth</b> to <b>two males,</b> i.e., twin males, and it is unknown which is the firstborn, <b>he gives five <i>sela</i></b> coins <b>to the priest</b> after thirty days have passed. If <b>one of them dies within thirty days</b> of birth, before the obligation to redeem the firstborn takes effect, <b>the father is exempt</b> from the payment due to uncertainty, as perhaps it was the firstborn who died. In a case where <b>the father died and the sons are alive, Rabbi Meir says: If they gave</b> the five <i>sela</i> coins to the priest <b>before they divided</b> their father’s property between them, <b>they gave</b> it, and it remains in the possession of the priest. <b>But if not,</b> they are <b>exempt</b> from giving the redemption money to the priest. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: The obligation</b> to redeem the firstborn already <b>took effect on the property</b> of the father; therefore, in either case the sons, his heirs, are required to pay the priest. If the wife gave birth to <b>a male and a female</b> and it is not known which was born first, <b>the priest has nothing here,</b> as it is possible that the female was born first.", | |
| "With regard to <b>two wives</b> of one man, both of <b>whom had not</b> previously <b>given birth, and they gave birth</b> to <b>two males,</b> i.e., each bore one male, and the sons were intermingled, the father <b>gives ten <i>sela</i></b> coins <b>to the priest</b> even if it is unknown which son was born first, because it is certain that each is firstborn of his mother. In a case where <b>one of them dies within thirty days</b> of birth, <b>if he gave</b> all ten <i>sela</i> coins <b>to one priest,</b> the priest <b>must return five <i>sela</i> to him,</b> because the father was not obligated to redeem the son who then died. <b>And if he gave</b> the redemption payment <b>to two</b> different <b>priests, he cannot reclaim</b> the money <b>from the possession</b> of either priest, as each could claim that the money that he received was for the living child. If one mother gave birth to <b>a male and</b> one gave birth to <b>a female,</b> or if between them they gave birth to <b>two males and</b> one <b>female,</b> and the children were intermingled, the father <b>gives five <i>sela</i></b> coins <b>to the priest:</b> In the first case because the male might have preceded the female and in the second case because one of the males is certainly firstborn. If the children were <b>two females and a male, or two males and two females, the priest has nothing here,</b> as it is possible the female was born first to each mother. If <b>one</b> of his wives <b>had</b> previously <b>given birth and one had not</b> previously <b>given birth and</b> they <b>gave birth</b> to <b>two males</b> who became intermingled, the father <b>gives five <i>sela</i></b> coins <b>to the priest,</b> as it is certain that one of them was born to the mother who had not yet given birth. If <b>one of them dies within thirty days</b> of birth <b>the father is exempt</b> from that payment, as it is possible that the one who died was born to the mother who had not yet given birth. In a case of intermingling where <b>the father died and the sons are alive, Rabbi Meir says: If they gave</b> the five <i>sela</i> coins to the priest <b>before they divided</b> their father’s property between them, <b>they gave</b> it, and it remains in the possession of the priest. <b>But if not,</b> they are <b>exempt</b> from giving the redemption payment to the priest. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> The <b>obligation</b> to redeem the firstborn already <b>took effect</b> on <b>the property</b> of the father. If the wives gave birth to <b>a male and a female the priest has nothing here,</b> as perhaps the female was born to the mother who had not yet given birth.", | |
| "With regard to <b>two women who had not</b> previously <b>given birth,</b> who were married <b>to two</b> different <b>men, and they gave birth</b> to <b>two males</b> and the sons were intermingled, <b>this</b> father <b>gives five <i>sela</i></b> coins <b>to a priest and that</b> father <b>gives five <i>sela</i></b> coins to a priest, as each is certainly firstborn to his mother. In a case where <b>one of them dies within thirty</b> days of birth, <b>if</b> the fathers <b>gave</b> all ten <i>sela</i> coins <b>to one priest,</b> the priest <b>must return five <i>sela</i></b> coins <b>to them. But if they gave</b> the redemption payment <b>to two</b> different <b>priests they cannot reclaim</b> the money <b>from the possession of</b> either priest, as each could claim that the money that he received was for the living child. If the women gave birth to <b>a male and a female</b> and the children became intermingled, <b>the fathers are exempt,</b> as each could claim that he is the father of the female, <b>but the son is obligated to redeem himself,</b> as he is certainly a firstborn. If <b>two females and a male</b> were born, <b>or two females and two males, the priest has nothing here,</b> as it is possible the female was born first to each mother.", | |
| "If <b>one</b> woman <b>had</b> previously <b>given birth and one had not</b> previously <b>given birth,</b> and they were married <b>to two men and they gave birth to two males,</b> who then became intermingled, <b>this</b> one <b>whose wife had not</b> previously <b>given birth gives five <i>sela</i></b> coins <b>to the priest.</b> If the women gave birth to <b>a male and a female the priest has nothing here,</b> as it is possible the female was born to the mother who had not yet given birth. If <b>the</b> firstborn <b>son dies within thirty days</b> of birth, <b>although</b> the father <b>gave</b> five <i>sela</i> <b>to the priest,</b> the priest <b>must return</b> it. If the firstborn son dies <b>after thirty days</b> have passed, <b>even if</b> the father <b>did not give</b> five <i>sela</i> coins to the priest <b>he must give</b> it then. If the firstborn <b>dies on the thirtieth day,</b> that day’s halakhic status is <b>like</b> that of the <b>day that preceded it,</b> as the obligation takes effect only after thirty days have elapsed. <b>Rabbi Akiva says:</b> If the firstborn dies on the thirtieth day it is a case of uncertainty; therefore, <b>if</b> the father already <b>gave</b> the redemption payment to the priest <b>he cannot take</b> it back, <b>but if he did not</b> yet <b>give</b> payment <b>he does not</b> need to <b>give</b> it. If <b>the father</b> of the firstborn <b>dies within thirty</b> days of birth <b>the presumptive status of</b> the son is <b>that he was not redeemed, until</b> the son <b>will bring proof that he was redeemed.</b> If the father dies <b>after thirty days</b> have passed <b>the presumptive status of</b> the son is <b>that he was redeemed, until</b> people <b>will tell him that he was not redeemed.</b> If one had both <b>himself to redeem and his son to redeem, his</b> own redemption <b>takes precedence over</b> that of <b>his son. Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> The redemption of <b>his son takes precedence, as the mitzva</b> to redeem the father is incumbent <b>upon his</b> own <b>father, and the mitzva</b> to redeem <b>his son</b> is incumbent <b>upon him.</b> ", | |
| "The <b>five <i>sela</i></b> coins <b>of</b> the redemption of <b>the</b> firstborn <b>son,</b> with regard to which it is written: “Five shekels of silver, after the shekel of the Sanctuary” (Numbers 18:16), are calculated <b>using a Tyrian <i>maneh</i>.</b> The silver content of the Tyrian coinage is significantly higher than that of provincial coinage, which is worth one-eighth its value. With regard to the <b>thirty</b> shekels paid to the owner <b>of</b> a Canaanite <b>slave</b> who is killed by an ox (see Exodus 21:32), and the <b>fifty</b> shekels paid <b>by a rapist</b> (see Deuteronomy 22:29) <b>and by a seducer</b> (see Exodus 22:16) of a young virgin woman, <b>and</b> the <b>one hundred</b> shekels paid <b>by the defamer</b> of his bride with the claim that she is not a virgin (see Deuteronomy 22:19), <b>all of them,</b> even those cases where the word shekel is not explicitly written, are paid <b>in the shekel of the Sanctuary,</b> whose value is twenty <i>gera</i> (see Numbers 18:16) and that is calculated <b>using a Tyrian <i>maneh</i>. And all</b> monetary obligations <b>are redeemed,</b> i.e., paid, <b>with</b> coins <b>or with</b> items of <b>the equivalent</b> value of <b>money, except for the</b> half-<b>shekels</b> that are donated to the Temple each year, which must be given specifically as coins.", | |
| "<b>One may not redeem</b> his firstborn son, <b>neither with</b> Canaanite <b>slaves, nor with</b> promissory <b>notes, nor with land, nor with consecrated items.</b> If the father <b>wrote</b> a promissory note <b>to the priest that he is obligated to give</b> him <b>five <i>sela</i></b> coins, the father is <b>obligated to give</b> them <b>to him but his son is not redeemed. Therefore, if the priest wished to give</b> back the five <i>sela</i> coins <b>to him as a gift</b> he is <b>permitted</b> to do so. With regard to <b>one who designates</b> five <i>sela</i> coins for <b>redemption of his</b> firstborn <b>son and he lost</b> the coins before he gave them to the priest, the father <b>bears</b> financial <b>responsibility for their</b> loss, <b>as it is stated</b> to Aaron the priest: “Everything that opens the womb in man and animal <b>shall be yours”; and</b> only afterward it says: <b>“You shall redeem</b> the firstborn of man” (Numbers 18:15). This indicates that only after the money shall be in the possession of the priest is the son redeemed.", | |
| "<b>The firstborn</b> son <b>takes a double</b> portion, i.e., twice the portion taken by the other sons, <b>when</b> inheriting <b>the property of the father, but he does not take twice</b> the portion <b>when</b> inheriting <b>the property of the mother. And neither does he take</b> twice the portion <b>in</b> any <b>enhancement</b> of the value of the property after the death of the father, <b>nor</b> does he take twice the portion <b>in</b> property <b>due</b> the father, <b>as</b> he does <b>in</b> property the father <b>possessed.</b> <b>And neither does a woman</b> take these portions, i.e., any enhancement of the value of the property or the property due the husband, from her husband’s property <b>for</b> payment of <b>her marriage contract</b> upon her divorce or her husband’s death; <b>nor</b> do <b>the daughters</b> take this share of the property <b>for their sustenance,</b> to which they are entitled from their late father’s possessions. <b>Nor</b> does <b>a man whose married brother died childless [<i>yavam</i>]</b> receive these portions, even though he acquires his brother’s portion of their shared father’s inheritance after performing levirate marriage with his brother’s wife. The mishna summarizes: <b>And all of them do not take</b> a portion <b>in</b> any <b>enhancement</b> of the value of the property after the death of the owner, <b>nor</b> do they take a portion <b>in</b> property <b>due</b> the deceased, <b>as</b> they do in property <b>in</b> his <b>possession.</b>", | |
| "<b>And these</b> are the people <b>whose</b> properties, unlike an ancestral field, <b>do not return</b> to their original owners <b>in the Jubilee</b> Year: The firstborn who inherited his father’s property by the right of <b>primogeniture</b> need not return the extra portion for redistribution among the brothers; <b>and one who inherits his wife’s</b> property need not return it to her family; <b>and one who consummates the levirate marriage with the wife of his brother</b> and gains the right to his brother’s property need not return it for redistribution among the brothers. <b>And</b> likewise, <b>a gift</b> of land need not be returned to the original owners in the Jubilee Year; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:</b> The halakhic status of <b>a gift</b> is <b>like</b> that of <b>a sale,</b> and it must be returned. <b>Rabbi Elazar says: All these</b> lands <b>return in the Jubilee</b> Year. <b>Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: Even one who inherits his wife’s</b> property <b>must return</b> the land <b>to the members of</b> her father’s <b>family and should deduct from them the monetary</b> value of the land, as the Gemara will explain." | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "The mitzva of <b>animal tithe is in effect</b> both <b>in Eretz</b> Yisrael <b>and outside of Eretz</b> Yisrael, <b>in the presence of,</b> i.e., in the time of, <b>the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple.</b> It is in effect <b>with regard to non-sacred</b> animals <b>but not with regard to sacrificial</b> animals. <b>And it is in effect with regard to the herd and the flock, but they are not tithed from one for the other;</b> and it is in effect <b>with regard to sheep and goats, and they are tithed from one for the other.</b> And it is in effect <b>with regard to</b> animals from <b>the new</b> flock <b>and with regard to</b> animals from <b>the old</b> flock, <b>but they are not tithed from one for the other. As by right, it should be</b> inferred: <b>If</b> in the case of animals from the <b>new</b> flock <b>and the old</b> flock, <b>which do not</b> carry the prohibition of mating <b>diverse kinds</b> when mated <b>with each other</b> because they are one species, <b>are</b> nevertheless <b>not tithed from one for the other,</b> then with regard to <b>sheep and goats, which do</b> carry the prohibition of mating <b>diverse kinds</b> when mated <b>with each other, is it not right that they will not be tithed from one for the other?</b> Therefore, <b>the verse states:</b> “And all the tithe of the herd <b>or the flock,</b> whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32), indicating that with regard to animal tithe, <b>all</b> animals that are included in the term <b>flock</b> are <b>one</b> species.", | |
| "Animals subject to the obligation of <b>animal tithe join together</b> if the distance between them is no greater <b>than the distance that a grazing animal</b> can <b>walk</b> and still be tended by one shepherd. <b>And how much is the distance that a grazing animal walks?</b> It is <b>sixteen <i>mil</i>.</b> If the distance <b>between these</b> animals <b>and those</b> animals <b>was thirty-two <i>mil</i> they do not join together.</b> If <b>he</b> also <b>had</b> animals <b>in the middle</b> of that distance of thirty-two <i>mil</i>, <b>he brings</b> all three flocks to a pen <b>and tithes them in the middle. Rabbi Meir says: The Jordan</b> River <b>divides</b> between animals on two sides of the river <b>with regard to animal tithe,</b> even if the distance between them is minimal.", | |
| "<b>One who purchases</b> an animal <b>or</b> has an animal <b>that was given to him as a gift</b> is <b>exempt from</b> separating <b>animal tithe.</b> With regard to <b>brothers and partners,</b> i.e., brothers who are partners in the inheritance of their father, <b>when they are obligated to</b> add <b>the premium [<i>bakalbon</i>]</b> to their annual half-shekel payment to the Temple <b>they are exempt from animal tithe.</b> Conversely, those whose halakhic status is like that of sons who are supported by their father and <b>are obligated to</b> separate <b>animal tithe are exempt from</b> adding <b>the premium.</b> The mishna clarifies: If the brothers <b>acquired</b> the animals through inheritance <b>from</b> the property in <b>the possession of</b> their father’s <b>house they are obligated</b> in animal tithe; <b>but if not, they are exempt.</b> How so? If <b>they divided</b> the inheritance between them <b>and then reentered a partnership, they are obligated to</b> add <b>the premium and are exempt from animal tithe.</b>", | |
| "<b>All</b> cattle, sheep, and goats <b>enter the pen to be tithed, except for</b> an animal crossbred <b>from diverse kinds,</b> e.g., a hybrid of a goat and a sheep; <b>a <i>tereifa</i>;</b> an animal <b>born by caesarean section;</b> one <b>whose time has not yet</b> arrived, i.e., that is younger than eight days old, which is when animals become eligible for sacrifice; <b>and an orphan. And what is an orphan?</b> It is <b>any</b> animal <b>whose mother died</b> or <b>was slaughtered</b> while giving birth to it <b>and thereafter</b> completed <b>giving birth</b> to it. <b>Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even if its mother was slaughtered but its hide exists</b> at birth, i.e., if the mother’s hide is present after the birth, <b>this is not an orphan.</b>", | |
| "There are <b>three</b> times during the year designated for <b>gathering</b> the animals that were born since the last date <b>for animal tithe: Adjacent to Passover, and adjacent to <i>Shavuot</i>, and adjacent to <i>Sukkot</i>. And those are the gathering</b> times <b>for animal tithe;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Akiva.</b> <b>Ben Azzai says</b> the dates are: <b>On the twenty-ninth of Adar, on the first of Sivan,</b> and <b>on the twenty-ninth of Av. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say</b> that the dates are: <b>On the first of Nisan, on the first of Sivan,</b> and <b>on the twenty-ninth of Elul. And why did</b> Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon <b>say the twenty-ninth of Elul, and</b> why <b>did they not say the first of Tishrei?</b> It is <b>due to</b> the fact <b>that</b> the first of Tishrei <b>is</b> the <b>festival</b> of Rosh HaShana, <b>and one cannot tithe on a Festival. Consequently, they brought it earlier, to the twenty-ninth of Elul.</b> <b>Rabbi Meir says:</b> The beginning of <b>the new year for animal tithe is on the first of Elul. Ben Azzai says:</b> The animals born in <b>Elul are tithed by themselves,</b> due to the uncertainty as to whether the <i>halakha</i> is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, i.e., that the new year begins on the first of Elul, or in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, which would mean that the new year begins on the first of Tishrei.", | |
| "According to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, with regard to <b>all</b> animals <b>that are born from the first of Tishrei until the twenty-ninth of Elul, those</b> animals <b>join</b> to be tithed <b>together.</b> If <b>five</b> were born <b>before Rosh HaShana and five after Rosh HaShana,</b> those animals <b>do not join</b> to be tithed <b>together.</b> If <b>five</b> were born <b>before</b> a time designated for <b>gathering and five after</b> that time designated for <b>gathering, those</b> animals <b>join</b> to be tithed <b>together. If so, why were three</b> times <b>stated</b> for <b>gathering</b> the animals <b>for animal tithe?</b> The reason is <b>that until the</b> time designated for <b>gathering arrives</b> it is <b>permitted to sell and slaughter</b> the animals. Once <b>the</b> time designated for <b>gathering arrives one may not slaughter</b> those animals before tithing them; <b>but if he slaughtered</b> an animal without tithing it he is <b>exempt.</b>", | |
| "<b>In what manner does one tithe</b> the animals? <b>He gathers them in a pen and provides them with a small,</b> i.e., narrow, <b>opening, so that two</b> animals <b>will not be able to emerge together. And he counts</b> the animals as they emerge: <b>One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine; and he paints</b> the animal <b>that emerges tenth with red paint and declares: This is tithe.</b> Even if <b>he did not paint it with red paint, or if he did not count</b> the animals <b>with a rod</b> in accordance with the verse: “Whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32), <b>or if he counted</b> the animals when they were <b>prone or standing</b> in place and did not make them pass through a narrow opening, <b>these</b> animals <b>are tithed</b> after the fact. But <b>if he had one hundred</b> animals <b>and he took ten</b> as tithe, or if he had <b>ten</b> animals <b>and he</b> simply <b>took one</b> as tithe, <b>that is not tithe,</b> as he did not count them one by one until reaching ten. <b>Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:</b> In that case too, it is <b>tithe.</b> If before the owner completed tithing his animals, <b>one of</b> those already <b>counted jumped</b> back into the pen <b>among</b> the animals that had not yet been counted, <b>all those</b> in the pen <b>are exempt</b> from being tithed, as each of them might be the animal that was already counted. If one <b>of</b> those animals that had been <b>tithed,</b> i.e., designated as the tenth, jumped back into the pen <b>among</b> the animals that had not yet been counted, creating uncertainty with regard to all the animals there which was the animal tithe, <b>all</b> the animals <b>must graze until they become unfit</b> for sacrifice, <b>and</b> each of them <b>may be eaten in its blemished</b> state <b>by</b> its <b>owner</b> once it develops a blemish.", | |
| "If <b>two</b> animals <b>emerged as one, one counts them as twos,</b> i.e., as though they came out one after the other. If he mistakenly <b>counted</b> two of the animals at the beginning or in the middle of the ten as <b>one,</b> and then continued his count, the <b>ninth and</b> the <b>tenth are flawed,</b> as he called the tenth: Ninth, and he called the eleventh: Tenth. If he mistakenly <b>called</b> the <b>ninth: Tenth, and</b> the <b>tenth: Ninth, and the eleventh: Tenth,</b> the <b>three of them are sacred,</b> although each has a different halakhic status. <b>The ninth is eaten in its blemished</b> state; <b>and the tenth is</b> animal <b>tithe,</b> which is sacrificed in the Temple and eaten by its owner; <b>and</b> the <b>eleventh is sacrificed as a peace offering,</b> from which the breast and the thigh are given to the priest. <b>And</b> the eleventh <b>renders</b> a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for the peace offering consecrated as <b>a substitute</b> and he sacrifices it as a peace offering; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir.</b> <b>Rabbi Yehuda said:</b> The eleventh animal itself, which he called tenth, is a substitute for animal tithe, <b>and does a substitute render</b> another animal <b>a substitute?</b> Everyone agrees that a substitute is created only in exchange for an originally consecrated animal. The Sages <b>said in the name of Rabbi Meir:</b> The eleventh animal is not considered a substitute for the animal tithe, since <b>if it were a substitute it would not be sacrificed,</b> as the substitute for an animal tithe is not sacrificed. If <b>one called the ninth</b> animal: <b>Tenth, and the tenth: Tenth, and the eleventh: Tenth, the eleventh is not consecrated. This is the principle:</b> In <b>any</b> situation <b>where the name</b> of the <b>tenth was not removed from</b> the tenth animal, the <b>eleventh</b> that was called the tenth <b>is not consecrated.</b>" | |
| ] | |
| ], | |
| "versions": [ | |
| [ | |
| "William Davidson Edition - English", | |
| "https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1" | |
| ] | |
| ], | |
| "heTitle": "משנה בכורות", | |
| "categories": [ | |
| "Mishnah", | |
| "Seder Kodashim" | |
| ], | |
| "sectionNames": [ | |
| "Chapter", | |
| "Mishnah" | |
| ] | |
| } |