diff --git "a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json" "b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json" @@ -0,0 +1,510 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה בכורות", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Kodashim" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Introduction to Tractate Bekhorot", + "Bekhorot means first-born (almost the same word as Bikkurim, first fruits). Our tractate deals with three different types of first-borns, each with their own particular rules.", + "1) The first-born of a donkey. Exodus 13:11-13 (full text below) says that the male first-born of a donkey must be redeemed with a sheep, meaning that the sheep becomes holy. According to Numbers 18:15-18 and other verses in Numbers (see below) the first born of every impure (non-edible) animal must be redeemed. This would include camels, horses and other domesticated but impure animals. There were some ancient Jews, including some rabbis, who thought that all impure animals must be redeemed. However, the halakhah dictated that only the first-born of donkeys needs to be redeemed.", + "2) The male first-born of a pure animal. This first-born as the status of a sacrifice, as we learned in Tractate Zevahim. If it is blemished it cannot be sacrificed, but it still must be given to the priest.", + "3) The male first-born of a human being. This first-born is redeemed by giving five shekels to the priest.", + "In addition, Bekhorot finishes with a chapter dedicated to the cattle tithe, the giving of the tenth-born of every domesticated animal to the priest. ", + "Below are the verses that are relevant to the topic of bekhorot. As you can see, this is a topic that receives quite a bit of “coverage” in the Torah.", + "Exodus 13 2 \"Consecrate to Me every first-born; man and beast, the first issue of every womb among the Israelites is Mine.\"", + "Exodus 13 11 \"And when the LORD has brought you into the land of the Canaanites, as He swore to you and to your fathers, and has given it to you, 12 you shall set apart for the LORD every first issue of the womb: every male firstling that your cattle drop shall be the LORD's. 13 But every firstling ass you shall redeem with a sheep; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. And you must redeem every first-born male among your children.", + "Exodus 22 28 You shall not put off the skimming of the first yield of your vats. You shall give Me the first-born among your sons. 29 You shall do the same with your cattle and your flocks: seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me.", + "Exodus 34 19 Every first issue of the womb is Mine, from all your livestock that drop a male as firstling, whether cattle or sheep. 20 But the firstling of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. And you must redeem every first-born among your sons. None shall appear before Me empty-handed.", + "Leviticus 27 26 A firstling of animals, however, which -- as a firstling -- is the LORD's, cannot be consecrated by anybody; whether ox or sheep, it is the LORD's.", + "Numbers 3 13 For every first-born is Mine: at the time that I smote every first-born in the land of Egypt, I consecrated every first-born in Israel, man and beast, to Myself, to be Mine, the LORD's.", + "Numbers 18 15 The first issue of the womb of every being, man or beast, that is offered to the LORD, shall be yours; but you shall have the first-born of man redeemed, and you shall also have the firstling of unclean animals redeemed. 16 Take as their redemption price, from the age of one month up, the money equivalent of five shekels by the sanctuary weight, which is twenty gerahs. 17 But the firstlings of cattle, sheep, or goats may not be redeemed; they are consecrated. You shall dash their blood against the altar, and turn their fat into smoke as an offering by fire for a pleasing odor to the LORD. 18 But their meat shall be yours: it shall be yours like the breast of elevation offering and like the right thigh.", + "Deuteronomy 15 19 You shall consecrate to the LORD your God all male firstlings that are born in your herd and in your flock: you must not work your firstling ox or shear your firstling sheep. 20 You and your household shall eat it annually before the LORD your God in the place that the LORD will choose. 21 But if it has a defect, lameness or blindness, any serious defect, you shall not sacrifice it to the LORD your God. 22 Eat it in your settlements, the unclean among you no less than the clean, just like the gazelle and the deer. 23 Only you must not partake of its blood; you shall pour it out on the ground like water." + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches that donkeys owned, or even partially owned, by non-Jews are exempt from the obligation to have their first-born redeemed.", + "[An Israelite] who buys a fetus of a donkey belonging to a non-Jew or who sells one to him, although this is not permitted, or who forms a partnership with him, or who receives [an animal] from him to look after or who gives [his donkey] to him to look after, is exempt from the [law of the] bekhor, for it says: [“I sanctified to me all the firstborn] in Israel,” (Numbers 3:13) but not in non-Jews. In order for a Jew to be liable to redeem the first-born of a donkey, a non-Jew cannot have any ownership or partial ownership over the donkey. So if a Jew buys a fetus (assumedly he buys a pregnant donkey) from a non-Jew it is exempt from the laws of the first-born, because it was conceived under non-Jewish ownership. Similarly, if he sells the fetus to the non-Jew, it is exempt. The mishnah notes that selling a donkey to a non-Jew is not permitted because it is forbidden to sell a large animal to a non-Jew (see Avodah Zarah 1:6). Nevertheless, if one does sell the donkey, it is exempt. If a Jew and a non-Jew are partners in owning a donkey it is exempt. If a Jew receives a donkey to take care of, and in return he keeps some of the offspring, or if he gives the donkey to the non-Jew to take care of and the non-Jew keeps some of the offspring, in both of these cases, the donkey is exempt because the non-Jew has some level of ownership over the animal. The exemption of non-Jews from these laws is derived from the word “in Israel,” which means that the law of the bekhor applies only to animals fully owned by Israelites.", + "Priests and levites are exempt through [an argument made by a] kal vehomer: if they exempted the first-born belonging to the Israelites in the wilderness, it follows all the more so that they should exempt their own. In Numbers 3:45 God instructs Moses to take the Levites in place of the first-born and to take the cattle of the Levites in place of the cattle of the first-born. From here the mishnah derives a kal vehomer (a fortiori) argument. If the Levites exempted the cattle of the first-born in the desert, then their own first-born animals are all the more so exempt from the law of the bekhor. Thus animals owned by priests and Levites are exempt from these laws. As we shall see, the same holds for children of priests and Levites." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with cases where the offspring of an animal is not the same species as the mother.", + "If a cow gave birth to a species of donkey, or a donkey gave birth to a species of horse, it is exempt from [the law of] the firstling, for it is said, “the firstling of a donkey,” “the firstling of a donkey,” twice [to teach that the law of the firstling does not apply] until that which gives birth is a donkey and that which is born is a donkey. In order for the owner of the animal to be liable to redeem the first-born donkey, it must be a donkey (at least look like a donkey) and be born from a donkey. If a cow gives birth to a donkey (I don’t really know if this is possible) or a donkey gives birth to a horse (perhaps the reference is to a mule) then there is no liability. This is derived from the fact that the Torah twice states “the first-born of a donkey” once in Exodus 13:12 and again in Exodus 34:20. The Torah repeats itself, according to the midrashic way of thinking, in order to teach that both the mother and the offspring must be donkeys.", + "And what is the law with regard to eating them? If a clean animal gave birth to a species of unclean animal, it is permitted to be eaten. But if an unclean animal gave birth to a species of a clean animal, it is forbidden to be eaten, for that which comes out of the unclean is unclean and that which comes out of the clean is clean. When it comes to determining whether an animal is kosher, the status of the animal follows its mother. Anything that comes out of a clean (kosher) animal is clean. So if a cow gives birth to a horse, one can eat the horse, but if a horse gives birth to a cow, the cow is not kosher. This is the matrilineal principle in the animal world. As an aside, some scholars surmise that the source of the idea that a child’s ethnicity/religion is determined by his mother is derived from the idea that an animal’s species is determined by its mother. While there is no conclusive proof of this, it is an intriguing theory.", + "If an unclean fish swallowed a clean fish, it is permitted to be eaten. But if a clean fish has swallowed an unclean fish, the latter is forbidden to be eaten, because it is not [the clean fish's] growth. The rule works differently if the animal coming out of another animal was not born but rather swallowed. If a clean fish swallows an unclean fish, and the unclean fish is found in the clean fish’s stomach, one may not eat the unclean fish. The opposite also holds true if one finds a clean fish in the stomach of an unclean fish, it may be eaten." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah introduces the complication of a donkey that gives birth to twins and it is unknown which came out first the male donkey, in which case the owner would be liable to redeem the donkey, or a female donkey, in which case the owner would not be liable. In addition the mishnah presents scenarios where several donkeys give birth and it is unknown whether the donkey the first-borns were male or female.", + "If a donkey that had never before given birth gave birth to two males, he gives one lamb to the priest. In this case, while we don’t know which donkey was born first, it is certain that a male was born first. Therefore, he must give one lamb to the priest to redeem the donkey.", + "[If it gave birth to] a male and a female, he sets aside one lamb [which he keeps] for himself. Here he doesn’t know whether the first born was the male, in which case he must redeem it by giving a lamb to the priest, or if it was the female, in which case he is exempt. He must set aside a lamb to redeem the donkey, but he need not give the lamb to the priest. This is because the priest cannot prove that the owner was liable, and there is a rule in monetary matters the burden of proof is upon the claimant. So the lamb stays with its owner.", + "If two donkeys that had never before given birth gave birth to two males, he gives two lambs to the priest. In this case, even if we don’t know which donkey gave birth to which male offspring, we know that each one had a male. He must give two lambs to the priest.", + "[If they gave birth to] a male and a female or two males and a female, he gives one lamb to the priest. If the two donkeys gave birth to one male and one female or two males and one female (one had twins) then we can be sure that at least one male was a first-born. The other male might be a first-born, or it might not. The mishnah teaches that since this other male is only doubtfully a first-born he can use one lamb to redeem both the certain first-born and the doubtful first-born. The lamb must be given to a priest.", + "[If they gave birth to] two females and a male or to two males and two females the priest receives nothing. If there were two females, then there is a possibility that the first born of each donkey was a female, no matter how many males were also born. Thus he need not give any lambs to the priest. However, the Tosefta notes that he must set aside one lamb and redeem the males that were born and might have been first-borns. He keeps this lamb for himself, as he did in section two." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first part of this mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. In these cases two animals give birth, one which had previously given birth and one which had not.\nThe second half of the mishnah begins to discuss the lamb used to redeem the donkey.", + "If one donkey had given birth before and one had not given birth before and they gave birth to two males, he gives one lamb to the priest. Since both donkeys gave birth to a male, it is certain that the donkey that had never given birth before gave birth to a male. So the owner is liable to give one lamb to the priest.", + "[If they gave birth to] a male and a female, he sets aside one lamb [which he keeps] for himself. If the two donkeys gave birth to a male and a female, then we don’t know whether the donkey which had never before given birth gave birth to the male, in which case it must be redeemed, or whether the other donkey gave birth to the male, in which case it is not a first-born. This is another case where there is doubt about whether the owner owes a lamb to the priest. As in the cases in yesterday’s mishnah, he sets aside a lamb to redeem the male donkey who might need to be redeemed, but he need not give the lamb to the priest, because the priest cannot prove that the male was a first-born.", + "For it says, “And the firstling of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb” (Exodus 34:20), [the lamb can come either] from the sheep or the goats, male or female, large or small, unblemished or blemished. This verse is brought here not to prove the sections which immediately precede it, but to bring Scriptural proof that a first-born of a donkey must be redeemed with a lamb. As long as this lamb is from a sheep or a goat, it can be used, no matter what type of lamb it is.", + "He can redeem with the same lamb many times. He can use one lamb to redeem as many donkeys as he wants, and thereby derive benefit from the donkey by taking away its sacred status. In other words, if he doesn’t give the lamb to the priest, he can keep using it to redeem other donkeys. However, there is a mitzvah to give the priest a lamb for each donkey being redeemed.", + "[And the lamb] enters the pen to be tithed. If an Israelite owns a lamb that he used to redeem a donkey, the lamb counts as far as tithing for that year goes. When he goes to count the lambs born in that year, this lamb too enters the pen to be counted.", + "If it dies [before he gives it to the priest], he can benefit from it. If the lamb dies he can derive benefit from its corpse. According to the Talmud, this means that the priest derives the benefit from the corpse, because from the time the lamb was set aside it belongs to the priest, even though it was still in the Israelite’s house." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah provides limits as to what type of animal can be used to redeem the first-born of a donkey.", + "We do not redeem with a calf, a wild animal, an animal slaughtered, a terefah, kilayim (a mixed or a koy. The redemption must be done with a lamb, one born of a sheep or a goat. A calf, born of a cow or a wild animal cannot be used. The lamb must be alive when used to redeem the donkey. It cannot be either slaughtered or a terefah (died without being properly slaughtered). Kilayim is a mixed breed. Here it refers to an animal born of a mix between a sheep and a goat. According to the first opinion, a kilayim is not a lamb. A koy is an animal which the rabbis couldn’t identify as either a domesticated or a wild animal (see Hullin 6:1). Since its status is not known, it cannot be used to redeem the first-born donkey.", + "Rabbi Eliezer permits [redemption] with kilayim because it is a lamb. But he forbids with a koy, because its nature is doubtful. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with regard to the kilayim. Since both a sheep and a goat have offspring that are called “lambs (seh)” this animal can be used. He agrees, however, that a koy cannot be used.", + "If he gave [the first-born of a donkey] itself to the priest, the latter may not keep it, until he sets aside a lamb in its place. He cannot simply give the first-born donkey to the priest. If he does so, the priest must return it to him, until the Israelite sets aside a lamb to redeem the donkey. At this point, the priest may keep the donkey, if the Israelite wants him to have it." + ], + [ + "If one sets aside [a lamb] for the redemption of the first-birth of a donkey and it died: Rabbi Eliezer says: he is responsible as is the case with the five selas for the redemption of the first-born. But the sages say: he is not responsible, as is the case with the redemption of the second tithe. In this case the lamb used to redeem the first-born of a donkey dies before it can be given to the priest. Rabbi Eliezer says that he must separate a new lamb and give it to the priest. This is the same rule as would apply if he lost the five selas that he must give to the priest in order to redeem his first-born son. To Rabbi Eliezer the donkey is not redeemed until the owner actually gives the lamb to the priest. Until that point the lamb belongs to the owner and if it dies, it is his loss. The other rabbis hold that once the lamb is set aside, the first-born of the donkey has been redeemed. The lamb has now taken the place of the donkey and the only thing missing is giving it to the priest. If the lamb dies now, it is the priest’s loss and he need not give another lamb to the priest. This is the same rule as applies to money used to redeem second tithe produce. Once the produce has been redeemed it is non-sacred and the money is holy. If the money is lost, he need not go back and redeem it again.", + "Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Zadok testified concerning the redemption of the first-born of a donkey which died that the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances]. Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Zadok testify that the halakhah is in accordance with the sages. If the lamb dies after it has been set aside to redeem the first-born donkey, the priest doesn’t receive anything. However, it seems that the priest would receive the corpse, because after all, the lamb was already his.", + "If the first-born of a donkey died [after the lamb for redemption had been set aside]: Rabbi Eliezer says: it shall be buried, but the lamb may be used. But the sages say: it does not need to be buried and the lamb belongs to the priest. If the first born of the donkey dies after the lamb has been set aside, Rabbi Eliezer believes that the donkey was still holy. Therefore, it must be buried and one cannot derive any benefit from its corpse. However, the holiness of the donkey had not yet been transferred to the lamb, because this only happens when the lamb is given to the priest. Therefore, the lamb can still be used. Note that this is consistent with Rabbi Eliezer’s position above. The other rabbis hold that as soon as the lamb is set aside, it takes on the holiness of the donkey. Therefore, it the donkey dies it need not be buried. The lamb, however, must be given to the priest because as soon as he set it aside, it belongs to the priest." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah begins by discussing a person who does not wish to redeem his first-born donkey by giving a lamb to the priest. It continues by dealing with a variety of other issues in which one way of performing a mitzvah takes priority over another way.", + "If he does not wish to redeem it, he breaks its neck from behind with a large knife and buries it. Exodus 13:13 states that if he doesn’t redeem the first-born donkey he must break its neck. This is done with a large knife. After he breaks its neck, he must bury it, because he may not derive any benefit from the corpse.", + "The mitzvah of redemption takes priority over the miztzah of breaking its neck, for it says: “And if you don’t redeem it, you must break its neck” (Exodus 13:13). Clearly, the Torah prefers that one redeem the first-born donkey, rather than break its neck. Associative thinking now brings the mishnah to discuss other cases where there is a preferred way of performing the mitzvah.", + "The mitzvah of designation takes priority over the mitzvah of redemption, for it says: “Who has betrothed her to himself, he must let her be redeemed” (Exodus 21:8). When a man buys a young slave girl, he has an option of either betrothing her to himself, or letting her be redeemed from slavery. Priority is given to marrying her, rather than letting her be redeemed by someone else. Indeed, it seems likely that the sale of a young girl was meant to be a marital type arrangement and the master would allow her to be redeemed only if he did not want to marry her. Allowing her to be redeemed was, in essence, an annulment of the original agreement.", + "The mitzvah of yibbum is prior to the mitzvah of halitzah. [This was so] at first when they intended to carry out the mitzvah. But now that they do not intend to carry out the mitzvah, the [rabbis] have said: the mitzvah of halitzah takes priority over the mitzvah of yibbum. Yibbum is levirate marriage, and halitzah is the release from levirate marriage. Clearly, the Torah prefers that the brother marry his dead brother’s wife, and only if he refuses to do so, is halitzah provided as an option. However, the priority of yibbum over halitzah is only in a case where the brother marries his widowed sister-in-law in order to have a child on behalf of his deceased brother. If he does so just because he wants to have relations with her, for his own enjoyment, then, the rabbis claim, it would be better for them to do halitzah. The mishnah presents this as a type of “good old days” scenario. In the “good old days” men had religious intentions when they performed yibbum. In those times, yibbum was preferable. Now they are just plain old sleeping with their dead brother’s wife, and therefore we should encourage halitzah.", + "The mitzvah of redemption [of an unclean animal whose value has been dedicated to the Temple] is upon the owner. He takes priority over any other man, for it says: “If it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your evaluation” (Leviticus 27:27). If one dedicates an unclean animal to the Temple, such as a horse, then the animal must be redeemed and the money goes to the Temple’s treasury. Anyone can redeem the animal and thereby it becomes his. However, the first right to redeem the animal belong to the owner who dedicated it in the first place. Only if he does not wish to do so, is someone else allowed to come along, redeem the animal and thereby acquire it for himself." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter two begins to discuss the first-born of a pure animal, such as a cow. This first-born is holy and must be sacrificed and the meat is eaten by the priests. If it is blemished, it must still be given to the priest, but it need not be sacrificed.", + "[An Israelite] who buys a fetus of a cow belonging to a non-Jew or who sells one to him, although this is not permitted, or who forms a partnership with him, or who receives [an animal] from him to look after or who gives [his cow] to him to look after, is exempt from the [law of the] bekhor, for it says: [“I sanctified to Me all the firstborn] in Israel,” (Numbers 3:13) but not in non-Jews. This is the same exact halakhah as was taught in the 1:1. See there for commentary.", + "Priests and Levites are subject [to the law of the first-born pure animal]. They are not exempt from [the law of] the first-born of a clean animal, but only of a first-born son and the first-born of a donkey. Priests and Levites are exempt from two of the three types of bekhorot the first born of a donkey and their own first-born son. They are, however, liable for the first-born of a pure animal. If a priest or Levite owns a pure animal and it gives birth for the first time and the offspring is male, it must be sacrificed. Then the priest eats the meat, as is always the case." + ], + [ + "All consecrated animals whose permanent physical blemish preceded their consecration and were then redeemed:
Are subject to the law of the firstling and to the priestly gifts,
And when they become like hullin [by being redeemed] they may be shorn and may be put to work.
And their young and their milk are permitted after they have been redeemed.
And he who slaughtered them outside the sanctuary is not liable.
And they do not render what is substituted for them [holy].
And if they died they may be redeemed, except for the firstling and the tithe of cattle.
This mishnah and tomorrow’s mishnah are an exact replica of Hullin 10:2. They are brought here in Tractate Bekhorot because they have some rules concerning bekhorot. My commentary, including the following introduction, is the same as that found in Hullin.
An animal that has a permanent physical blemish cannot be sacrificed. Our mishnah distinguishes between cases where the blemish preceded the consecration of the animal, versus cases where the consecration preceded the blemish.
If the animal had a permanent blemish before it was consecrated, then the animal itself doesn’t become holy. Instead, the consecrator has in reality dedicated the value of the animal to the Temple. Thus this animal is treated like a hullin, non-sacred, animal, except that it has to be redeemed before any use can be made of it. If it gives birth to a firstling, the firstling is holy, as is the case with a hullin animal. When one slaughters it, he must give the shoulder, cheeks and stomach to the priest. After it becomes hullin by being redeemed, it may be shorn and work may be performed with it. Similarly, its young and its milk are not prohibited. One who slaughters it outside the Temple is not liable for he has slaughtered a non-sacred animal. If one tries to exchange it for another animal, the other animal is not holy. If the animal dies, it will still need to be redeemed, so that its meat can be given to dogs.
The only exception to all of these rules is if this animal that had a permanent blemish is itself a firstling or a tithed animal. The firstling is holy from the moment it is born even if it has a blemish. Similarly, even blemished animals must be tithed (see Leviticus 27:33). Thus these animals are holy regardless of whether they have blemishes and therefore they cannot be treated as the animals above were treated." + ], + [ + "All [consecrated animals] whose consecration preceded their permanent, or their impermanent blemish [preceded] their consecration and subsequently they contracted a permanent blemish, and they were redeemed:
Are exempt from the law of the firstling, and from priestly gifts;
And they are not like unconsecrated animals to be shorn or put to work;
And [even] after they have been redeemed their young and their milk are forbidden;
And he who slaughtered them outside the sanctuary is liable;
And they render what was substituted for them [holy],
And if they died they must be buried.
An animal that is first consecrated and then becomes blemished is a consecrated animal, even though it cannot be sacrificed. Similarly, if an animal has a passing blemish, and then it is consecrated, it is a consecrated animal. These animals must be redeemed, and the money used to buy a new sacrifice. However, they remain consecrated even after redemption.
Therefore, their offspring is exempt from the laws of tithe and firstling, as are the offspring of all consecrated animals. One who slaughters them after their redemption need not give the shoulder, cheeks and stomach to the priest. Even after they are redeemed, it is forbidden to shear them or to perform any work with them. Their offspring and their milk remain prohibited, even after they have been redeemed. Indeed, it seems like the only thing that can be done with them is to eat them.
Our version of the mishnah says that if one slaughters them outside of the Temple, he is liable. This is difficult, because what it he supposed to do with them he can’t offer them as sacrifices nor can he slaughter them outside of the Temple. There is a version which reads “exempt” instead of “liable.” However, the Talmud reads “liable” and explains that this mishnah is according to Rabbi Akiva who holds that if an animal with a blemish was put onto the altar, it is not to be removed (Zevahim 9:3). Thus, although this animal should not be sacrificed, if it is put on the altar, it can be sacrificed.
If one exchanges this animal for another, the other animal also becomes holy. Consecrated animals cannot be exchanged one for the other, and if one tries to do so, the original animal remains holy and the new animal becomes holy.
Finally, if they die before they are redeemed, they must be buried, because no one can derive benefit from their meat." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah discusses a Jew who receives a flock of sheep or goats from a non-Jew under “iron terms.” What this means is that all responsibility for the flock lies with the Jew, and he pays the non-Jew a fixed sum per year in return for use of the flock and the use of the offspring. Alternatively, instead of paying a fixed sum, the Jew and the non-Jew split the profits and the offspring.", + "If one receives flock from a non-Jew on “iron terms” their offspring are exempt [from the law of] the first born. In mishnah one we learned that the flock itself is exempt from the laws of the first born. Our mishnah teaches that if one of the offspring of the original flock gives birth, that offspring is also exempt from the law of the first born, meaning its first born is not holy. The reason for this exemption is that if the Jew reneges on his payment to the non-Jew, the non-Jew can take the offspring as part of his payment. This means that they are in some sense owned by the non-Jew and as we have learned, animals owned by non-Jews are not subject to the law of the first-born.", + "But the offspring of their offspring are liable [to the law of the first born]. However, the offspring of the offspring are liable meaning that the first born offspring born of this offspring are holy and must be treated as such.", + "If [the Israelite] put the offspring in the place of their mothers, then the offspring of the offspring are exempt, but the offspring of the offspring of the offspring are liable. If the Jew tells the non-Jew that he is going to pay him back not with the original flock but with its offspring, then the exemption is extended another generation, to the first born of the offspring of the offspring. (It might help you to use names here, Debbie, born of Charlene, born of Becca, born of Alice apologies to those with these names!). Again, since the non-Jew can claim these animals (Charlene), they are considered to be in his possession in order to exempt their offspring (Debbie).", + "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even for ten generations the offspring are exempt [from the law of the first born] since they are pledged to the non-Jew. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that all subsequent offspring are pledged to the non-Jew, no matter how many generations removed. Therefore, they are all exempt from the laws of the first born (so Eunice is exempt, as if Freda, and Gladys and Harriet, and Iris would you like me to go to Z for Zoey, my daughter’s name?)." + ], + [ + "If a ewe gave birth to what looked like a kid, or a [female] goat gave birth to what looked like a lamb, it is exempt from [the law of] the first born. As we learned in connection with the donkey, in order for the offspring to be liable for the law of the first born, it must be of the same species as its mother. If the offspring of a sheep looks like a goat, or the offspring of a goat looks like a sheep, it is exempt.", + "But if it some of the signs of [its mother] it is liable [to the law of the first born]. If it looks a bit like its mother, then it is liable." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses cases where the ewe seems to give birth to two first-borns at the same time.", + "If a ewe which never before had given birth bore two males and both heads came forth simultaneously: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: both belong to the priest for scripture says: “The males shall be the Lord’s” (Exodus 13:12). But the sages say: it is impossible, therefore one remains [with the Israelite] and the other is for the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean both males are considered to be first-borns and both are given to the priest. This is derived midrashically from the plural use of “males” in Exodus 13. The other rabbis, however, disagree with Rabbi Yose and say that this is impossible (doesn’t sound too pleasant for the sheep either). Rather, one must have been the first-born, even if we don’t know which one it was. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva debate about how we determine which of the two animals goes to the priest. According to Rabbi Tarfon, the priest can choose which of the twins he wants. Rabbi Akiva says that they estimate the value of the two kids, and the priest and the owner divide the amount. However, the Tosefta and the Talmud state that the owner keeps the fatter, more valuable of the two kids. This is because of the principle, “the burden of proof is upon the claimant.” Since the priest cannot prove that the better of the two is his, he can only take the lesser.", + "The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. The animal kept by the owner cannot simply be eaten, because it might be a first-born. Therefore, the solution is to let it become blemished and then it can be eaten by its owners. When he slaughters it he must give the priestly gifts, the shoulder, the cheeks and the stomach, to the priest. For if the animal was a first-born then he should have given it all to the priest. And if the animal is not a first-born, then he is liable to give the priestly gifts, as is always the case when one slaughters animals (see chapter ten of Hullin). Rabbi Yose exempts. We will see Rabbi Yose’s reasoning below in mishnah eight.", + "If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If one of them dies, Rabbi Tarfon says that they can split the value of the living one. Rabbi Akiva holds that since the priest cannot prove that the one that died was the second born he has no right to claim the live one. Again, Rabbi Akiva employs the principle of “the burden of proof is upon the claimant.”", + "If it gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances]. In this case, when a male and female were born, it is possible that there is no first-born because the female might have been born first. Therefore, the priest doesn’t receive anything. The male animal must go out to pasture until it becomes blemished and after that point, the owner can eat it. He can’t eat it beforehand because it might be a bekhor." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah is similar to yesterday’s mishnah except that today’s mishnah deals with two sheep that had never given birth before, whereas yesterday’s mishnah dealt with one ewe that had twins. Most of this mishnah is the same as that which we learned yesterday, so I refer the reader to my commentary there.", + "If two ewes which had never previously given birth bore two males, both belong to the priest. If both of the first-borns are males, then obviously, both go to the priest.", + "[If they gave birth] to a male and a female, the male belongs to the priest. If one is a male and the other is a female, then we know that the male is a first-born and it goes to the priest.", + "[If they gave birth] to two males and a female, one remains with him, and the other belongs to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. In this case, one male is certainly a first-born, but we don’t know which one. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva again debate how we determine who gets which of the two. For an explanation, see yesterday’s mishnah.", + "The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. This is identical to the debate in yesterday’s mishnah.", + "If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. See yesterday’s mishnah.", + "[If they gave birth to] two females and a male or two males and two females, the priest receives nothing in such circumstances. If they gave birth to two females, it is possible that there was no male first-born. Therefore, the priest doesn’t receive anything. The Tosefta adds that the males must go out to pasture and become blemished before they can be eaten. This is because they might be first-borns and all doubtful first-borns must become blemished before they can be eaten." + ], + [ + "If one [of the ewes] had given birth and the other had never previously given birth and they bore two males, one remains with him and the other belongs to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them.
The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. For Rabbi Yose says: wherever the priest receives [an animal] in its place, he is exempt from the priestly gifts. Rabbi Meir however makes him liable.
If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant.
If they gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances].
This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday and the previous day’s mishnah. Much of the explanation for the mishnah can be found there.
Section one: Again, we have here a situation where we know that one of two males is a first-born and one is not. One goes to the priest and again Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva argue about how we determine who gets which animal. See mishnah six for an explanation.
Section two: Most of this section is the same as in mishnah six. We learn here, finally, the reason that Rabbi Yose exempts the animal that stays with the owner from being liable for the priestly gifts. Whenever a priest receives one animal in return for another, the animal that is exchanged is exempt. In this case the priest receives one animal in return for giving away the other animal. It is as if he received the animal and then exchanged it for another. Any animal owned by a priest is exempt from the priestly gifts, and therefore the animal that goes to the original owner is exempt. Rabbi Meir disagrees and says that he is still liable.
Sections three and four: These are the same as the end of mishnah six. See there for an explanation." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with an animal born through what is today called a cesarean section. The term the Mishnah uses is “one who came out through the wall” because this animal was taken out through the wall of its mother’s stomach.", + "With regard to [an animal] that was born through a cesarean section and the first born which came after it:
Rabbi Tarfon says: both go out to pasture until blemished and are eaten with their blemishes by the owners. Rabbi Tarfon believes that both animals are doubtful first borns. The one born through cesarean section was the first born and the second one was the one who opened its mother’s womb, the phrase the Torah uses to describe a first born (see Exodus 13). Therefore, both must go out to pasture until they become blemished and then they may be eaten (blemishes and all) by their owners.", + "But Rabbi Akiva says: neither of them is a first born; the first because it did not open its mother’s womb, and the second, because another preceded it. According to Rabbi Akiva, in order for the rule of the first born to apply, the animal must be a first born and be the first to open its mother’s womb. The first born did not open its mother’s womb and the second was not the first born, so the law of the first born does not apply to either." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday’s mishnah deals with a person who bought an animal from a non-Jew and doesn’t know whether it had yet given birth. If it had not, then the first animal born in Jewish possession would be considered a first born and would have to be treated accordingly.", + "If one buys an animal from a non-Jew and it is not known whether it had given birth or had not given birth: Rabbi Ishmael says: that born of a goat in its first year certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first-born]. That born of a ewe two years old certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first born]. That born of a cow or a donkey three years old certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first born]. Rabbi Ishmael says that we can estimate whether the animal had given birth by checking the age of the animal. If the goat gives birth within its first year, we can assume that it is a first born. If the goat is beyond its first year, then it is a case of a doubtful first born. As we have seen previously, doubtful first borns go out to pasture until they become blemished, at which point they may be eaten by their owners. Rabbi Ishmael proceeds to give ages in which we can expect that a ewe and a cow would give birth.", + "Rabbi Akiva to him: if an animal were exempted [from the law of the first born] only with the birth of [actual] offspring, it would be as you say. But they said: the sign of offspring in small cattle is a discharge [from the womb]. In large cattle, the after-birth; in a woman, the signs are the fetus and the after-birth. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Ishmael because the rabbis taught that if an animal or woman miscarries before having her first born, the next animal/child is not considered the first born, at least not to be treated as holy. Therefore, even if the animal gives birth within that time period, there is no way of knowing if it had previously miscarried. Rabbi Akiva now gives signs by which we can know whether an animal or woman had miscarried. This would be important to distinguish between a true miscarriage and non-miscarriage discharge.", + "This is the general rule: Whenever it is known that it had given birth, the priest receives nothing. Whenever it had never given birth, it belongs to the priest. If there is a doubt, it shall be eaten blemished by the owners. Having rejected Rabbi Ishmael, Rabbi Akiva must provide an alternative way to treat the animal bought from the non-Jew. He relies on general rules of certain/doubtful property cases. If we know for a fact that the animal had never given birth, then the first born in Jewish possession must be treated as a first born and given to the priest. If the animal definitely had given birth before, then obviously the priest doesn’t receive anything. Finally, if it is doubtful, then the animal must go out to pasture, become blemished and then it can be eaten by its owners.", + "Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if a large domestic animal has discharged a clot of blood, it [the clot] shall be buried, and it [the mother] is exempted from the law of the first born. As an addendum to our mishnah, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov states that if a large animal discharges a blood clot, the blood clot should be buried. This will allow people to know that the clot is being treated as a miscarriage and that the next born animal is not the first born." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel teaches that when one sees an animal nursing, he can assume that it is nursing its own offspring. As we shall see, this has certain halakhic ramifications for determining which animal is a first born.", + "Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel says: if one buys a nursing animal from a non-Jew, he need not fear that perhaps the offspring belongs to another [animal]. If one buys a nursing animal from a non-Jew, one can assume that it is nursing its own animal and therefore, one does not have to treat the next born animal as a first born.", + "If he went among his herd and saw animals which had given birth for the first time nursing and animals which had not given birth for the first time nursing, we need not fear that perhaps the offspring of this one came to the other or perhaps the offspring of the other came to this one. Similarly, if one sees animals in his own herd nursing, he can assume that they are nursing their own offspring. For instance, if he sees an animal that he knows has already given birth nursing a female and an animal that has not given birth is nursing a male, he can be sure that the male is a first born. If the offspring of the one that has given birth is a male, he can be sure that it is not a first born." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIt is prohibited to shear a first born (this is based on a midrash on Deuteronomy 15:22). Our mishnah discusses how one can remove some of the hair of the first born without transgressing this prohibition.", + "Rabbi Yose ben Meshullam says: one who slaughters the first born, [first] clears a space with the [butcher's] knife on both sides and tears the hair, as long as he does not remove the wool from its place. If one wants to make space on the first born’s neck so that it can be properly slaughtered, what he should first do is use the butcher’s knife to clear some hair to the sides. Then he can pull out some of the hair but he should leave it stuck elsewhere in the animal’s wool so that it doesn’t look as if he is shearing. Someone who sees him act in such a manner will know that his intent is to clear some room on the animal’s neck, and not to remove the animal’s wool.", + "And similarly one may tear the hair to show the place of the blemish [to a sage]. The same procedure should be followed if one wants to clear some hair from the animal to show the blemish to a sage so that the sage could declare it blemished." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with the prohibition of shearing a first born, even a blemished first born that may be slaughtered and eaten. We should note that not only is it forbidden to shear the animal, but if it is sheared, it is forbidden to derive benefit from its wool. However, this prohibition is in effect only if the animal was sheared while it was alive. Once dead or slaughtered the wool that is subsequently removed can be used. Specifically, our mishnah deals with wool that fell off the animal while it was alive.", + "If [a portion of] the hair of a blemished first born fell out and he placed it in the window, and then he slaughtered the animal, Akavya ben Mahalalel allows it. But the sages forbid it, the words of Rabbi Judah. Wool that falls off when the animal is alive is forbidden as long as the animal is alive. In the case in this mishnah, the person put the wool that fell out of the animal in a hole in the window to store it so that he could use it after he slaughtered the animal. Akavya ben Mehalalel allows the use of that wool after the animal was slaughtered. Since the slaughtering allows the wool that is on the animal when it is slaughtered, it also allows wool that fell out of the animal while it was still alive. Note that Akavya would not allow wool that was sheared when the animal was alive, because shearing is a prohibited action. The other sages forbid this wool. This is the version of the debate according to Rabbi Judah.", + "Rabbi Yose said to him: Akavya ben Mahalalel did not allow [only] in this case, but [even] in the case where the hair of a blemished first born which fell out and he placed it in the window, and the animal died subsequently, [even] in this case Akavya ben Mahalalel allows, but the sages forbid. Rabbi Yose has a different version of the debate. According to Rabbi Yose if the animal was slaughtered, then even the rabbis agree that the wool that fell off when it was alive may be used. Rabbi Yose holds that they debated a case where the wool fell off and then the animal died on its own. In this case, it is prohibited to derive benefit from both the meat and the wool that is on the animal. Therefore, the wool that fell off the animal is also prohibited. According to Rabbi Yose, Akavya allows the wool even in this case.", + "If the wool of a first born is hanging loose, that part which appears [on a level] with [the rest of] the wool is permitted, whereas that which does not appear [on a level] with [the rest of] the wool is forbidden. Here we deal with some wool that has become detached from the animal but is still stuck to the rest of the animal’s wool. When he slaughters the animal, the part that is seen on level with the rest of the wool is permitted, because it does not look like wool that fell off while the animal was alive. However, if it is noticeable that the wool fell off when the animal was still alive, then it is forbidden. This is according to Rabbi Judah’s opinion, that the sages prohibit wool that fell off the animal when it was still alive, even if the animal was properly slaughtered. Rabbi Yose would hold that this wool is permitted in any case." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nWhen a first born is born into an Israelite’s herd, the Israelite is not allowed to immediately give it to the priest. Rather, he must take care of it for a period of time and then transfer the animal to the priest. Our mishnah discusses how long he needs to take care of the animal.\nAs background to this mishnah, we must remember that after the Temple was destroyed, the priest would have to hold on to the first born until it became blemished, at which point he could slaughter it and eat it. During this period he couldn’t use it for anything else. When the Temple was still standing, he could sacrifice it whenever he wanted to, as long as it was already eight days old.", + "For how long is an Israelite bound to take care of a first born? In the case of small cattle, for thirty days, and large cattle, fifty days. Rabbi Yose says: in the case of small cattle, three months. It is in the priest’s interest for the Israelite to take care of the animal as long as possible, to feed it and fatten it up. Therefore, the mishnah sets a mandatory period in which the Israelite must take care of the animal. According to the first opinion, this time period is longer for large cattle such as oxen, because they need to be fattened up more. According to Rabbi Yose the opposite is true. The period is longer for small cattle such as goats and sheep because their survival is more precarious.", + "If the priest says [to the Israelite] during this period “Give it to me,” he must not give it to him. One would think that if the priest is willing to take the animal at an earlier period, the Israelite would be allowed to give it to him. The mishnah rules that this is forbidden. The problem is that if priests start helping Israelites out in preparing that which they must give them, then there is a danger of a quid pro quo situation being created “you take the animal earlier, and I will give it to you and not another priest.” Ultimately, this would be against the priests’ best interests, so the mishnah makes such behavior prohibited. Also, the Torah says that these must be given to the priests, and not that the priests should have to work in order to receive their gifts.", + "But if the first born was blemished and the priest said to him “Give it to me so that I may eat it,” then it is allowed. However, if the animal is blemished already, then the priest can eat it immediately, as opposed to holding on to it until it becomes blemished. Therefore, in this case the Israelite can immediately give it to the priest.", + "And in Temple times, if [the first born] was in an unblemished state and the priest said to him “Give it to me, and I will offer it up it was allowed.” When the Temple still stood the priest could sacrifice the animal immediately. Therefore, the Israelite can give it to him as soon as the priest asks for it.", + "A first born is eaten year by year both in an unblemished as well as in a blemished state, for it is said: “You shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year” (Deuteronomy 15:20). The first born must either be eaten or sacrificed (when the Temple still stood) within its first year. If it is not blemished within this year, then the priest must sacrifice it. This is derived from the verse in Deuteronomy. Obviously, once the Temple was destroyed, the priest might have to wait longer for it to become blemished. " + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, where we learned that a priest is supposed to eat the first-born within its first year.", + "If a blemish appeared on it in its first year, he is permitted to keep it all the twelve months. If it is blemished before the year is up, he can wait up to a year to eat it.", + "If after the twelve months, however, he is not permitted to keep it except for thirty days. If the year has already passed, he must slaughter it within thirty days. It is interesting to note that the reason someone might want to wait to slaughter his first born is probably because he doesn’t want to eat such a large quantity of meat until there is some special occasion (wedding, perhaps). People in the ancient world did not eat meat on a regular basis. The Torah (and Mishnah) need to prohibit waiting, because otherwise, people might hold on to their first borns for a long time." + ], + [ + "If one slaughtered the first born and then showed its blemish [to an expert]:
Rabbi Judah permits,
But Rabbi Meir says: since it was not slaughtered by the instructions of the expert, it is forbidden.
One of the main functions of rabbis was to examine first born animals and to determine whether they had a blemish that would prohibit the animal from being sacrificed. After the Temple was destroyed, this was obviously a very important matter, one of grave economic significance, because other than slaughter and eat the first born, nothing else could be done with it. Indeed, one of the major aspects of rabbinic ordination was allowing a student to become a rabbi in order to allow first borns to be eaten. In order to receive such ordination one must be an expert in determining what animals are blemished and trustworthy to allow the blemished ones and forbid the unblemished ones.
Generally, the animal would first be shown to an expert (a rabbi) and then, if the rabbi determined that it was blemished, the animal could be slaughtered and eaten. However, in the case in our mishnah, the person slaughtered it and then brought it to a rabbi. At this point, the rabbi must determine whether there was a blemish on the animal before it was slaughtered.
According to Rabbi Judah, if the sage sees such a blemish, the meat may be eaten. Rabbi Meir, however, prohibits the meat because he did not follow the proper procedure." + ], + [ + "If one who is not an expert sees a first born and it was slaughtered by his instructions, in such a case it shall be buried and he shall make reparation from his own pocket.
If a [non-expert] judge gave a judgment and declared innocent a person who was really liable or made liable a person who was really innocent, declared unclean a thing which was clean or declared clean a thing which was really unclean, his decision stands but he has to make reparation from his own pocket.
If the judge was an expert [sanctioned by the] court, he is exempt from making reparation.
It happened once that a cow's womb was removed and Rabbi Tarfon gave it [the cow] to the dogs to eat. The matter came before the sages at Yavneh and they permitted the animal. Todos the physician said: no cow or pig leaves Alexandria of Egypt before its womb is removed in order that it may not breed. Rabbi Tarfon said: “There goes your donkey, Tarfon.” Rabbi Akiva said to him: you are exempt, for you are an expert and whoever is an expert sanctioned by the court is exempt from reparation.
Our mishnah deals with the consequences of a judge who issues an errant ruling.
Section one: A person who is not an expert has no business declaring a first born blemished such that it can be slaughtered. If he does declare that it is blemished and the animal is slaughtered, the meat is prohibited and it must be buried. [Rabbi Judah would allow an expert to see if it was blemished, see yesterday’s mishnah]. In addition, the non-expert who allowed the animal to be slaughtered must repay the owner from his own pocket. Clearly, this is meant to discourage a non-expert from declaring an animal blemished.
Section two: The same is true in other cases of judicial decisions. If a non-expert judge renders a decision and later it is found that he made the wrong decision, he must make restitution from his own pocket. Non-experts should simply not make decisions, and if they do, they run the risk of incurring liability.
Section three: The mishnah now brings an interesting story of a mistaken judgment. A cow is brought in front of the sages so that they can determine whether the cow is a terefah, an animal with a wound/disease that would cause it to die within a short period. Such an animal may not be eaten. The sages in Yavneh determined that the animal was indeed a terefah. After making this determination, Todos, a doctor, testified that in Alexandria they would regularly remove the wombs from cows and pigs before they would allow the animal to leave the city. They would do this because they thought their cows and pigs were of superior breed and they didn’t want others to breed them. In any case, this proves that a cow with its womb removed is not a terefah.
Rabbi Tarfon realizes that he has made a mistake and therefore, exclaims to himself, “Tarfon, there goes your donkey!” Rabbi Tarfon is now going to have to sell his donkey to pay back for the loss of the cow.
Rabbi Akiva assures Rabbi Tarfon that he has not lost his donkey, because he is an expert, and an expert doesn’t have to make restitution when he renders a mistaken judgment.
I don’t know whether the mishnah is intentionally being ironic, but I find it funny that Rabbi Tarfon is an expert, even though he doesn’t know that the halakhah is that he doesn’t have to pay back the loss. In other words, he is an expert despite the fact that he has made two mistakes in one mishnah." + ], + [ + "If one takes payment for seeing first borns, they must not be slaughtered by his instructions unless he was an expert like Ila in Yavneh whom the sages permitted to accept four isars for small cattle and six as for large cattle, whether unblemished or blemished. Generally speaking it is forbidden for a sage to take wages in return for examining a first born to see if it is blemished or not. If a sage does take a wage and he declares it blemished the animal may not be slaughtered because it is feared that the wage acted as a bribe. The one exception is men who are like the legendary Ila in Yavneh. Ila was a great expert in blemishes and many priests would bring him their animals for examination. He was also wealthy enough that he didn’t need their payments. A bribe wouldn’t cause him to allow an unblemished animal to be slaughtered. Finally, he was known to be an honest man who would not lie in return for money. Because he exhibited all of these qualities, he was allowed to charge a fee for examining first borns. However, it is important to note that he collected his fee whether or not he declared the animal to be blemished. Obviously, it would be extremely problematic for him to collect his fee only if he declared it blemished. This would truly be a recipe for bribes." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with a judge or other official who takes payment for performing his work.", + "If one takes payment to act as a judge, his judgments are void; to give evidence, his evidence is void; to sprinkle or to sanctify, the waters are considered cave waters and the ashes are considered burned ashes. If one takes payment in order to fulfill legal or ritual functions, his actions are void. To sprinkle refers to a priest who sprinkles the red heifer waters on an impure person. To “sanctify” means to place the ashes in water. “Cave waters” and “burned ashes” are the way that the mishnah says that the water and ashes are invalidated from purifying the impure. All of these are functions that people must perform without taking payment.", + "If he was a priest and he was made unclean regarding his terumah, he must give him food and drink and rub him with oil. The mishnah now notes that while a priest or sage should not take a wage for rendering their services, they are not obligated to incur a loss. We should note that there will be a fine line between preventing a loss and rendering payment. The first part is concerned with a priest who loses his ability to eat terumah. Normally, a priest eats terumah which he receives as a gift from Israelites. The fact that he receives terumah from Israelites seems to be, at least partially, a payment for his rendering priestly services. If while rendering one of the services mentioned in section one a priest becomes impure, the person who requested his services must provide him with food, drink and oil from his own expense. This is not payment for the services but rather compensation for the loss of the priest’s ability to eat, drink and anoint with terumah.", + "And if he was an old sage, he mounts him on a donkey. If an old sage comes to render any of these services, the person requesting his help must give him a donkey to ride around on. The old man doesn’t have to walk around himself if this would be difficult for him. Providing transportation is no considered paying for the sage’s services.", + "He also pays him as he would a workman. Finally, and quite importantly, the person requesting the judge or priest’s help must pay him the wages that he would have been earning in his regular profession had he not been rendering judgment etc. Thus if the priest/sage was a laborer making five dollars an hour, then he would have to be paid five dollars for every hour taken up with the person’s case. If he worked in a more lucrative profession, he would earn the higher wage. This is not considered to be paying him for services rendered, but rather compensating him for wages he cannot earn." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with a person who is suspected of not treating his first born animals as holy. For instance, he slaughters an unblemished first born, or he intentionally blemishes it. The problem with such a person is that we must be concerned that many of the products that he might sell are actually derived from first borns who were illicitly slaughtered (or sheared).", + "If one is suspected in connection with first borns, one must not buy from him even deer's flesh or unprocessed hides. The law of the first born applies only to domesticated animals cows, sheep and goats. Seemingly, one could buy deer’s flesh from a person suspected of slaughtering his first born animals without concern. However, the mishnah rules that we must be concerned even with this because the meat of a calf can look like the meat of a deer. We must be concerned that he is really selling the meat of a calf and just telling people it is deer meat. One also can’t buy from him unprocessed hides, lest they come from a first born. However, one may buy from him a processed hide because if he had slaughtered a first born he would want to sell it is quickly as possible so that he would not be caught.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: one may buy from him female hides we may buy from him. Rabbi Eliezer says that one can buy hides from him if it is obvious that the hides come from a female, because females are not treated halakhically as first borns. We are not concerned that he would make hides from a male look like hides from a female, assumedly because this is not easy to do.", + "One may not buy from him washed or dirty wool, but one may buy spun wool or garments. We cannot buy from him wool, whether it has been washed or is still dirty, because we must be concerned lest it come from a first born. As we have learned, it is forbidden to shear a first born, even one that is blemished. However, we can buy wool that has been more fully processed for the same reason that we can buy processed hides. A person who illicitly shears his first born animal is going to want to sell the wool as soon as possible in order to hide his crime from the authorities." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nSince yesterday’s mishnah dealt with a person suspected of selling first borns, today’s mishnah deals with a person suspected of transgressing the laws of the sabbatical year. This would include one suspected of planting on the sabbatical year, or of selling sabbatical year produce as merchandise.", + "If one is suspected of [ignoring the] sabbatical year, one may not buy from him flax, even combed; but spun or woven flax may be bought from him. One should not buy flax from a person who is suspected of transgressing the laws of the sabbatical year lest that flax was sewn during the sabbatical year. Alternatively, even if it was not sewn that year, the seller is not supposed to be treating sabbatical year produce as merchandise. One shouldn’t buy even combed flax, because the seller, suspected of transgressing these laws, would not hesitate to take this small step in processing the flax. However, one can buy spun or woven flax from him, for the same reason we explained in yesterday’s mishnah. If he is suspected of transgressing the sabbatical year, he would not take the time to process the flax to such a great extent for fear of getting caught. Therefore, we can assume that this flax was not sabbatical year flax." + ], + [ + "If one is suspected of selling terumah as hullin, one may not buy even water and salt from him, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Judah rules strictly one can’t buy any food products from someone suspected of selling terumah as if it were hullin, even water and salt, which obviously are not subject to the laws of terumah. This is a punishment for the fact that he sells terumah as hullin, which is a serious offense, akin to a butcher who today would sell non-kosher meat as kosher meat.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: [one may not buy from him] whatever is connected to terumah and tithes. Rabbi Shimon rules more leniently one can’t buy from him only objects that are liable for terumah, namely agricultural products. It is permitted to buy from this person water and salt. This would be like saying today that if a kosher butcher sells non-kosher meat one could still buy drinks, bread etc. from him." + ], + [ + "One who is suspected of ignoring the sabbatical year is not suspected of ignoring [also] the tithes. Someone who is suspected of not properly observing the sabbatical year is not automatically suspected of not tithing his food. This would mean that when it is not the sabbatical year, a person could buy or eat his produce without concern that the food is not tithed.", + "One who is suspected of ignoring tithes is not suspected of ignoring [also] the sabbatical year. Similarly, one who is generally suspected of not tithing, is not automatically suspected of not observing the sabbatical laws. The two are not connected, even though they are in the same general set of prohibitions.", + "One who is suspected of ignoring both is suspected of ignoring the rules of purity. However, one who is suspected of transgressing both the sabbatical year laws and of not tithing is suspected of not observing the purity laws. What this would mean is that he cannot be trusted to state that the food that he is selling is pure. This would have ramifications only for a person who is interested in eating all of their food in a state of purity, a custom that was attributed to the Pharisees.", + "And it is possible for one to be suspected of ignoring the rules of purity and yet not be suspected of ignoring the two laws [cited above]. The opposite of section three is not true one can be suspected of not observing the purity laws, but trusted with regard to the sabbatical laws and tithing. It seems that certain purity matters were easily ignored, perhaps because fewer people observed them in the mishnaic period or perhaps because it is not really a transgression to eat food without it being pure. Therefore, one who transgresses more consequential laws such as tithing and the sabbatical year, is suspected of transgressing the less consequential matter of purity.", + "This is the general rule: one who is suspected of [transgressing] something must not give judgment on it or testify concerning it. A person is suspected of transgressing a certain law cannot give testimony or render judgment concerning this law. We shall see this statement again below in 5:4." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nAnimals that have been dedicated to the Temple and then became blemished can be sold, the profit going to the Temple. Our mishnah teaches that this works a bit differently for blemished first borns.", + "All dedicated animals which became unfit [for the altar] are sold in a market, slaughtered in a market and weighed by the liter, except for a first born or a tithed animal, as their profit goes to the owners, [whereas] the profit on dedicated objects which became unfit goes to the Temple. It is considered somewhat disgraceful that a once holy animal should be slaughtered and sold in the marketplace like common meat. However, this is also the most profitable way to sell the animal’s meat. Normal dedicated animals may be slaughtered and sold in the market, and weighed using weights because we want to maximize the profit that goes to the Temple. In contrast, the profit from selling a blemished first born or tithed animal goes to the priests (or in certain cases the original owners), therefore, we are not concerned with maximizing the profit. In such a case, we want to minimize the disgrace to the animal and its meat. The animal should be slaughtered and sold privately, at one’s home. The meat should not be weighed on scales using known weights, but rather its weight should be estimated.", + "One can weigh one piece of meat of the first-born against another piece of ordinary meat. While one cannot weigh the meat of the first born on a scale using set weights, it is permitted to weigh it on a scale using another piece of meat of known weight. This is not considered to be as disgraceful." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThere are two topics in our mishnah. The first section deals with a Jew sharing a blemished first born with a priest. The second section deals with blood letting a first born in order to heal it.", + "Bet Shammai says: An Israelite must not be invited to share [a blemished first born] with a priest. But Bet Hillel permits this, even in the case of a non-Jew. According to Bet Shammai, if a priest owns a blemished first born which he can eat, he should not invite an Israelite to share it with him. The mishnah does not explain why Bet Shammai prohibits this and the Talmud gives a midrashic reasoning. Perhaps Bet Shammai fear that the priest may be bribing the Israelite to give him the blemished first born. To prevent bribes, Bet Shammai prohibits this. Bet Hillel permits, and they even allow a non-Jew to share in eating the first born. The reason to mention that a non-Jew can share in eating the first born is to teach that the priest can do with it as he pleases, as long as he doesn’t shear it or sell its meat in the market (as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah).", + "If a first born has a blood attack, even if it is going to die, its blood may not be let, the words of Rabbi Judah. It is prohibited to blemish a first born animal so that it can be eaten (see tomorrow’s mishnah). According to Rabbi Judah, even if the blemish is done through blood letting with the intention of saving the animal’s life, it is still prohibited.", + "But the sages say: he may let its blood, as long as he does not make a blemish. And if he made a blemish, he must not slaughter it on account of this. The sages permit the animal’s blood to be let, as long as he does it in a way that the animal will not be halakhically considered blemished. And if it does become halakhically blemished, he can’t count this blemish as grounds to slaughter the animal. Rather he would have to wait until the animal becomes blemished in another way and only then can he slaughter it. Note that he cannot sacrifice it after the first blemish because one can never slaughter a blemished animal.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: he may let blood, even though he makes a blemish. Rabbi Shimon is even more lenient and allows one to let the blood of an animal, even if he does it in such a way that it will cause a blemish. According to the Talmud, Rabbi Shimon would also let him slaughter the animal based on this blemish. Since his intention was to save the animal’s life (so he could properly slaughter it and eat it) this is not considered intentionally blemishing an animal, a topic to be discussed in tomorrow’s mishnah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday’s mishnah deals with the status of first borns who were intentionally blemished by their owners. It contains two very interesting stories.", + "If one makes a slit in the ear of a firstborn animal, he may never slaughter it, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: when another blemish appears, he may slaughter it on account of it. According to Rabbi Eliezer, if one intentionally blemishes a first born, he can never slaughter the animal. Even if it is subsequently blemished in another way, he is penalized and he still cannot slaughter it. The other sages adopt a more lenient position. The blemish that he put on the animal itself is not sufficient to allow him to slaughter it. However, he can slaughter and eat the animal when it is blemished in another way.", + "It happened that a quaestor (a Roman saw an old male lamb with its long wool hanging down and asked: what is the meaning of this? They replied: “It is a first born and is not to be slaughtered until it has a blemish,” [The quaestor] took a dagger and slit its ear. The matter came before the sages and they permitted it. After they had permitted, he went and sliced the ears of other [first borns]. The [sages] forbade them. It is forbidden to shear first born animals, so if they are not blemished and they can’t be sacrificed because the Temple is no longer standing, they will grow very long hair. Upon seeing one such strange beast, a Roman official asked the Jews what is going on with their goat. The Jews explained that they could not slaughter the animal until it became blemished. The Roman official, being a very helpful non-Jew, proceeded to intentionally blemish the animal. When the Jews brought the animal to the sages, the sages permitted it. Seeing that he had been so helpful to the Jews, the Roman official decided to be even more helpful and he went and blemished other first borns (I never knew Romans were so interested in helping Jews perhaps he just liked to slice the ears of goats?). This time the sages didn’t permit the first borns to be eaten. Once the Roman knew that by his blemishing them they could be eaten, his actions could no longer allow the first born to be eaten.", + "Once children were once playing in a field. They tied the tails of sheep one to the other and one tail which belonged to a first born was severed. The matter came before the rabbis and they permitted [the first born]. When the children saw that they had permitted [the first born to be slaughtered], they proceeded to tie the tails of other first borns. The [sages] forbade [the other first borns]. A similar story is related concerning some children, who while playing a game, blemished a first born animal. Since they didn’t know that their actions would allow the animal to be eaten, the sages permitted it. However, when they began to intentionally blemish other animals, the sages did not permit them.", + "This is the rule: wherever the blemish is caused with the knowledge and consent [of the owner] it is forbidden, but, if it is not with his knowledge and consent, it is permitted. The general rule is that if the blemish was done without the knowledge or consent of the owner of the animal, the first born may be eaten. But if the owner knew that what he was doing was going to permit the animal to be eaten, or if he consented to someone else blemishing the animal, it cannot be eaten, at least not based on that particular blemish." + ], + [ + "If a first born was running after him and he kicked it and thereby blemished it, he may slaughter it on account of this. Since this person did not intentionally blemish the first born in order to slaughter it and eat it, it can be slaughtered on account of this blemish.", + "Any blemish which might have been made by a person, Israelite shepherds are trustworthy whereas shepherds who are priests are not trustworthy. The mishnah now returns to the issue of trustworthiness. An Israelite shepherd is trusted if he says that a blemish that could have been done by a person happened naturally, because the Israelite does not get to eat the animal himself. The assumption is that a person won’t lie in order to provide benefit to another person. However, the priest shepherd is not trusted because he himself could benefit from his lie.", + "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he is trustworthy with regard to somebody else's first born, but he is not trustworthy with regard to his own. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel refines the previous section. The priest shepherd can be trusted if he is testifying concerning another priest’s first born. His lack of trustworthiness is limited to his own animals, where has a vested stake in their being deemed blemished.", + "Rabbi Meir says: one who is suspected of neglecting a religious matter must not issue judgment on it or give evidence concerning it. Rabbi Meir disagrees with Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and says that if a person is not trusted with regard to a certain matter, such as first born blemishes, then he is not trusted to testify with regard to any issue that is connected with that matter. Thus if a priest is not trusted with regard to his own first borns, then he can’t be trusted to testify with regard to other priest’s first borns." + ], + [ + "A priest is trusted to say, “I have shown this first born [to an expert] and it is blemished.” In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that priests were suspected of blemishing their first born animals so that they could eat them. Today’s mishnah teaches that they are not suspected of completely lying and saying that they showed a first born to an expert who declared it blemished, when in reality they did not. This is actually a very interesting insight as to the mentality of the priests. They will not eat an unblemished first born, because the Torah clearly states that an unblemished first born must be sacrificed. However, they might intentionally blemish a first born, because all this amounts to is “cheating the system.” It does not seem to be a direct violation of the prohibition of eating an unblemished first born.", + "All are trust worthy with regard to the blemishes of a tithed animal. A tithed animal is brought to Jerusalem, its innards are sacrificed and the remainder of its meat is eaten by its owners. In contrast, a tithed animal that becomes blemished after it has been set aside as tithe is not sacrificed and can simply be eaten by its owners. An Israelite is not suspected of intentionally blemishing his tithed animals because had he wanted to lie, he could have blemished the entire herd before he set aside one of them as a tithe, and then the whole herd could have been exempt. Whenever a person could have achieved his goals without lying, he is trusted to not lie.", + "A first born whose eye was blinded or whose fore-foot was cut off, or whose hind-leg was broken, may be slaughtered with the approval of three [persons] of the synagogue. But Rabbi Yose says: even if twenty-three were present, it must not be slaughtered except with the approval of an expert. Generally, a person must bring his first born to a qualified rabbinic expert for him to determine whether the blemish renders the animal unfit for sacrifice. However, if the blemish is completely obvious, such as the loss of an eye or a limb, then there is a leniency, according to the first opinion in the mishnah. He can bring the animal to three “people of the synagogue.” These are people who are generally cautious in their performance of mitzvoth, they are not “amei haaretz,” but they are not experts in the laws of blemishes. It seems that their function is to certify that he brought the animal to them, but not actually have to render a ruling whether or not the animal was blemished. Rabbi Yose demands that a rabbi who is an expert in what blemishes disqualify a person must be present. Even if there are twenty-three judges, the number necessary to constitute a small Sanhedrin, the animal cannot be slaughtered unless there is an expert." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday’s mishnah deals with a butcher who sells meat that comes from an animal that should not have been slaughtered.", + "If one slaughtered a first born and it became known that he had not shown it [to an expert]: That which [the purchasers] have eaten, they ate, and he must return the money to them. That which they have not yet eaten, the flesh must be buried and he must return the money to them. If the butcher slaughters and then sells the meat of a first born without first showing it to an expert to determine whether it was blemished, the meat cannot be eaten. If they have already eaten some of the meat, there is nothing they can do about it. However, he still must pay them their money back, even though they ate the meat. This is a penalty for selling a first born without making sure it was first blemished. The meat that has not yet been eaten must be buried, as is the rule for a sacrifice that was slaughtered outside the Temple. Obviously, he must also pay them back for this meat.", + "And likewise if one slaughtered a cow and sold it and it became known that it was terefah: That which [the purchasers] have eaten, they ate, and he must return the money to them. That which they have not eaten, they return the flesh to him and he must return the money to them. If [the purchasers], sold it to non-Jews or cast it to dogs, they must pay him the price of a terefah. The rule is similar for a butcher who sells the meat of an animal that was actually a terefah (an animal with a wound or illness that would have caused it to die such an animal cannot be eaten). The butcher must pay his customers back for the meat they ate because he is penalized for carelessly selling terefah meat. Meat that they have not eaten should be returned to him and he can either feed it to animals or sell it to non-Jews, since it is permitted to derive benefit (but not eat) a terefah. Obviously, he must pay them back for this meat. If they had already sold the meat to non-Jews or gave it to an animal, then they must pay him the amount that a terefah costs, which is much cheaper than a kosher animal. If they already paid him for kosher meat, he will have to return to them the difference." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter six delineates the types of blemishes that disqualify a first born animal from being sacrificed. The Torah lists only two types of blemishes “lame and blind” (see Deuteronomy 15:21). However, the same verse also states, “any serious blemish.” From this verse the rabbis derive that any blemish that is significant like being lame and blind, renders the animal unfit. The general rule is that the blemish must be visible and a type of blemish that doesn’t heal.\nToday’s mishnah deals with blemishes of the ear.", + "In consequence of the following blemishes a first-born animal may be slaughtered:
If its ear has become defective, from the cartilages [inward] but not if the defect is in the ear-flap; In order for the defect in the ear to disqualify the animal, it must be in the inner, cartilage part of the ear, and not in the flappy outside part. To be defective means that part of the ear has been removed.", + "If it is slit although there was no loss [of substance]; The animal is also disqualified if the entire cartilage part is slit, even if no part of the ear is missing.", + "If it is perforated with a hole as large as a karshinah A karshinah is a type of legume. If the ear has a hole in it the size of this legume, the animal is disqualified.", + "Or if [the ear] has become dry. What is considered “becoming dry”? If when pierced no drop of blood comes out. Rabbi Yose ben Meshullam says: [it] is dry when it crumbles [when touched]. A dry and withered out ear also disqualifies the animal. There are two opinions as to what makes an ear considered to be dry and withered out. The first is that it is void of blood. The second is that it is so dry that it crumbles when touched." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with blemishes of the eye. Leviticus 21:20 states that a priest that has a blemish in his eye cannot serve on the altar. Our mishnah explains what that means, at least with regard to the blemished animal.", + "One whose eyelid is pierced, defected or slit, If the eyelid is pierced, defected or slit, the animal is considered blemished.", + "Or if the eye has a cataract, or a tevalul, halazon [snail-shaped], nahash [snake-shaped] or a [berry-shaped] growth on the eye, [the animal is disqualified]. Most of this section deals with various growths on the eye. A cataract will also disqualify the animal.", + "What is a tevalul? The white of the eye breaking through the ring and entering into the black. But if the black breaks through the ring and goes into the white, it is not a [disqualifying] blemish, because there are no disqualifying blemishes as regards the white of the eye. The mishnah now explains “tevalul” which is the word used in Leviticus 21:20 for an eye blemish. If a white thread goes out from the white of the eye and enters the pupil, the animal is considered blemished, because this would affect its vision. However, if the black has broken through to the white the animal is not considered blemished, because blemishes have to be the pupil and not to the white part of the eye." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with blemishes of the eye.", + "Havarvar [white spots] on the cornea and water constantly dripping from the eye, [are disqualifying blemishes]. The two blemishes discussed here are white spots on the cornea, which is probably a type of cataract and water dripping from the eye, which probably means that the animal has an eye infection.", + "What do we mean by a permanent hawarwar? If it remained for a period of eighty days. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: we must examine it three times in the eighty days. In order for the white spots to be considered a blemish they must be present for eighty days in a row. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus adds in that we must check at least three times during the eighty days. It is not sufficient if we know that the white spots were there in the beginning of the eighty days and at the end.", + "And the following are cases of constant dripping from the eye [and how to test its permanency]: if it ate [for a cure] fresh [fodder] and dry [fodder] from a field sufficiently watered by rain [it is a permanent blemish, if not cured]. [If it ate] fresh [fodder] and then dry [fodder] from a field requiring artificial irrigation, or if it ate dry [fodder] first and then fresh [fodder from field watered by rain] it is not a blemish unless it eats dry [fodder] after the fresh. There is a cure for a dripping eye to eat first fresh fodder and then dry fodder from a field irrigated by rain. If the animal eats this cure and it isn’t healed then the animal has a permanent blemish. However, if he eats fodder from an artificially irrigated field or dry fodder and then fresh fodder from a rain-irrigated field, and the eye continues to drip, it is not a sign of a permanent blemish because the animal did not eat the proper cure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday’s mishnah deals with defects of the nose and mouth.", + "If its nose is perforated, defective, or slit, or its upper lip perforated, defective, or slit [these are disqualifying blemishes]. If there is any defect of the nose or upper lip, the first born is considered blemished and it may be slaughtered.", + "If the outer incisors are defective or leveled [to the gum] or the molars are torn out [completely], [these are disqualifying blemishes]. But Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: we do not examine behind the molars, nor the molars themselves. I have translated this section to refer to the defects of the teeth. The words may also be understood as referring to defects of the gums. In any case, the rule is stricter with regard to the outer incisors than it is for the inner molars. For the inner molars to be considered defective, they must be completely torn out." + ], + [ + "Today’s mishnah deals with defects in an animal’s genitalia.
If the sheath [of the penis] is defective or the genitals of a female animal in the case of sacrificial offerings [it is defective.] If the sheath that holds the male penis is defective, it won’t heal and therefore it constitutes a permanent wound. A female animal whose genitalia are defective cannot be offered as a sacrifice. It is not relevant to say that it cannot be a first-born since a bekhor (a first-born) must be a male.", + "If the tail is mutilated from the bone but not from the joint; or if the top end [root] of the tail is bared to the bone; or if there is flesh between one joint and another [in the tail] to the amount of a finger's breadth [the animal is defective]. There are three defects listed here: 1) If the tail is mutilated on its bone part, then the animal is defective because the wound will not heal. However, if it is mutilated on the joint between the segments it can still be sacrificed as a first born. 2) If the root end of the tail is bared to the bone. 3) If there is too much space between the joints of the tail." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with blemishes to an animal’s genitalia.", + "If [a first born] has no testicles or if it only has one testicle, [it is a blemish]. The lack of one or both testicles is considered a defect.", + "Rabbi Ishmael says: if it has two pouches, then it has two testicles, but if it only has one pouch, then it only has one testicle. The remainder of the mishnah deals with how one determines if an animal has both testicles [since this is not a test that I have ever administered, I will assume that how many testicles an animal has is not readily apparent.] Rabbi Ishmael says that one simply counts the pouches. If it has two pouches, then it has two testicles and is not defective.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: [the animal] is placed on its buttocks and he squeezes [the pouch]. If a testicle is [in there, inside the pouch] it will eventually come out. Rabbi Akiva does not believe that if there are two pouches there are necessarily two testicles. Rather one must test the animal to see if there are really two inside there.", + "It happened that one squeezed it and [the testicle] did not come out, but when it was slaughtered [the testicle] was found attached to the loins, and Rabbi Akiva permitted [the animal] while Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri prohibited it. It seems that this story supports Rabbi Ishmael’s view, because Rabbi Akiva’s test does not work. The animal is tested and the testicle does not come out, even though it is later revealed to have been there. This animal had both testicles and therefore it should not have been slaughtered. Generally, if a first-born is slaughtered when it shouldn’t have been, the meat is prohibited. However, Rabbi Akiva allows the animal to be eaten, because according to Rabbi Akiva if the testicle does not emerge when squeezed it is blemished. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri prohibited the animal because it was not blemished and should not have been slaughtered." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with defects in the legs and feet.", + "If [a first born] has five legs or if it has only three legs, or if its feet are uncloven like that of a donkey, or if it is a shahul or a kasul [these are blemishes]. An extra or a missing leg renders an animal defective, as do several other defects in the leg.", + "What is a shahul? [An animal] with a dislocated hip. What is a kasul? [An animal] one of whose hips is higher than the other. The mishnah now defines the terms shahul and kasul. The first term refers to an animal with a dislocated hip, whereas the second term refers to an animal whose hips are of different height. Both defects make a first born animal fit for slaughter." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday’s mishnah begins by continuing to discuss blemishes of the leg. It then continues with a discussion of some additional blemishes that were added by a sage named Ila.", + "If the bone of the fore-leg or of its hind-leg is broken, even though it is not noticeable, [this is a blemish]. A broken leg counts as a blemish even if the break is not noticeable.", + "These blemishes Ila enumerated in Yavneh and the sages agreed with him. As we learned in mishnah 4:5, Ila was an expert on animal blemishes, perhaps we might call him the veterinarian of his times. The above list of blemishes was recited by Ila in front of the sages in Yavneh, after the destruction of the Temple. They agreed with him that these blemishes disqualify the first-born animal from being sacrificed.", + "He also added another three cases [of blemishes]. They said to him: we have only heard these [already mentioned previously]. The above list was one that Ila had received from his teachers, and therefore the rabbis accepted it. In other words, Ila’s authority stemmed from his knowledge of tradition and not his scientific acumen. We know this because when Ila added a few more blemishes, the rabbis disagreed with him. They were willing to accept only the blemishes that they had already heard about, and not those that Ila personally added.", + "[The three added by Ila were]: one whose eyeball is round like that of a human or whose mouth is like that of a pig or if the greater part of the speaking part of the tongue has been removed. A subsequent court ruled however: each of these cases is a [disqualifying] blemish. The mishnah now lists the blemishes that Ila added. Interestingly, a subsequent court agreed with Ila. Perhaps this demonstrates a shift in how courts adjudicated halakhah. While the earlier rabbis accepted only tradition, later rabbis began to accept the authority of the innovations of individual rabbis." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah lists a few additional blemishes which disqualify the first born.", + "It happened that the lower jaw [of a first born] was larger than the upper jaw. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel asked the sages [for a ruling] and they said: this is a blemish. In this case an animal seems to be blemished, but Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel is not sure if the blemish is sufficient to disqualify it. He brings the animal in front of the other sages and they rule that it is a blemish and it is disqualified.", + "The ear of a kid which was doubled: the sages ruled: if it is all one bone, it is a blemish, but if it is not all one bone, it is not a blemish. If the kid seems to have one ear inside of another ear, the kid is considered blemished if the ear has only one “bone” meaning one ear lobe. This would seem to refer to a case where the external lobe was bent over and turned into the internal ear. However, if the “bone” (the lobe) is split at the top, the animal is not blemished. We should note that the reason for this is unclear and indeed the Rambam has a different and opposite version of the mishnah: if it is one bone it is blemished but if it is not one bone, it is not blemished.", + "Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says: if the tail of a kid is like that of a pig, or if the tail does not possess three vertebrae, this is a blemish. If a kid’s tail looks like a pig’s tail, or does not have the full three vertebrae, the animal is blemished." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: if [a first born] has a wart in its eye or if a bone of its fore-leg or hind-leg is defective, or if the bone of the mouth split, or one eye is large and the other small, or one ear is large and the other small, being visibly so and not merely in measurement [all of these are blemishes].
Rabbi Judah says: if one testicle is as large as two of the other [this is a blemish]. But the sages didn’t agree with him.
In the first section of this mishnah, Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus adds several more defects to the list. In the second section, Rabbi Judah adds another defect, but the other sages disagree with him.
Since the mishnah is quite clear on its own, there is no commentary below." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis is the final mishnah that lists blemishes that disqualify an animal.", + "If the tail of a calf does not reach the joint, [it is a blemish]. The sages said: the growth of all calves is in this manner, as long as [the animals] grow, the tails also extend [below]. To which joint does this refer? Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: the joint in the middle of the hip. According to the first opinion, if the tail does not reach the joint in the middle of the hip, the joint that connects the thigh bone with the thigh, the animal is defective. The other sages disagree and say that it is normal for the tail to grow slowly. Thus if early in life the tail does not reach the hip joint, it is not a blemish because it will grow later.", + "In consequence of these blemishes we may slaughter a firstborn animal, and consecrated animals rendered unfit [for the altar] in consequence of these blemishes may be redeemed. This section relates to all of the blemishes listed above in the chapter. If a first born has any one of these blemishes it may be slaughtered and it need not be brought to the Temple as a sacrifice. If a consecrated animal develops one of these blemishes it cannot be offered as a sacrifice and must be redeemed for money." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe blemishes listed in this mishnah disqualify an animal from being valid as a sacrifice. However, they are not permanent blemishes and therefore if the animal is a first born, it may not be slaughtered. Basically, all the owner can do is wait until either the blemish goes away or a permanent blemish develops.", + "And in consequence of the following blemishes one may not slaughter a first born either in the Temple or in the rest of the state: This is an introduction to the rest of the mishnah.", + "White spots on the cornea and water [dripping from the eye] which are not permanent, These blemishes were listed in mishnah three. If they are not permanent, the animal may not be slaughtered, although it may not be sacrificed.", + "Or molars which have been broken but not torn out [completely]; Problems with the molars were listed in mishnah four. Since they have not been torn out, the blemish is not permanent.", + "Or [an animal] affected with garav, a wart, or hazazit. A garav and a hazazit are kinds of boil. Since boils and warts are impermanent, they do not allow the first born to be slaughtered.", + "An old [animal] or a sick one, [an animal] of offensive smell; An old, sick or foul-smelling animal cannot be sacrificed, but since these are not exactly blemishes, they also can’t be slaughtered.", + "Or [an animal] which with a transgression has been committed or an animal which is known to have killed a human being on the testimony of one witness or of the owners. If two witnesses see an animal commit a transgression, either having sexual relations with a human or killing a human, the animal must be executed and can obviously not be sacrificed. However, if there is only witness, or if the owners were the witnesses, then the animal need not be executed. However, since it did commit a capital crime, it cannot be sacrificed but neither can it be slaughtered to be eaten.", + "A tumtum or a hermaphrodite cannot be slaughtered, neither in the Temple or in the rest of the state. Rabbi Ishmael however says: there is no greater blemish than that [of a hermaphrodite]. But the sages say: it is not considered a first-born and it may be shorn and worked with. A tumtum is an animal (or human being) with neither male nor female genitalia, whereas a hermaphrodite has both sets of genitalia. There are three opinions as to the status of a first born that is a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. According to the first opinion, while it cannot be sacrificed, because it is blemished, it also cannot be slaughtered and eaten. Rabbi Ishmael holds that it is blemished and therefore it can be slaughtered and eaten. The other sages say that such an animal is not even considered a first born because it may not be a male. They too would hold that it can be slaughtered and eaten." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nSince chapter six dealt with blemishes that render an animal unfit to be a sacrifice, this chapter lists blemishes that disqualify a priest from serving in the Temple.", + "These blemishes [named above], whether permanent or transitory, make human beings unfit [to serve in the Temple]. The same blemishes that disqualify animals also disqualify priests from serving in the Temple. That a priest with a blemish cannot serve in the Temple is stated in Leviticus 21:21, “No man among the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a defect shall be qualified to offer the Lord’s gift; having a defect, he shall not be qualified to offer the food of his God.” Our chapter will explain and expand the list found in this chapter of Leviticus.", + "There are more than this concerning human beings: kilon, liftan, makkaban, one whose head is angular or shekifas . There are other defects that also can prevent a man from serving as a priest. The defects in this section refer to various types of misshapen heads. A kilon is one with a wedge-shaped head, a laftan is one with a turnip shaped head, a makkavan is one with a hammer-shaped head and a shekifas is one with a bent head. In other words, for a priest to serve in the Temple, his head must be shaped in a normal fashion.", + "A hunchback: Rabbi Judah considers him fit, Whereas the sages consider him unfit. The sages debate whether a hunchback can serve as a priest in the Temple. Rabbi Judah says that it does not disqualify him from serving, whereas the sages consider him unfit." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with various defects concerning the hair on one’s head.", + "A bald-headed person is unfit [for the priesthood]. What is considered bald-headed? One who does not have a line of hair from ear to ear. If he has one, then he is fit. One who is bald cannot serve in the Temple. However, this is limited to one who is really bald, a man who doesn’t even have a line of hair from one ear to the other. Those, like me, who are bald but have a little bit of hair, can, thankfully, fulfill their role as priests (now if only my father was a kohnen..).", + "One who has no eyebrows or has only one eyebrow [is unfit], this being the gibben mentioned in the Torah. Rabbi Dosa says: one whose eyebrows lie flat [overshadowing the eyes]. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: one who has a double back or a double spine. In the chapter dealing with the blemishes of the priest, the Torah lists the “gibben” (Leviticus 21:20). The rabbis debate what this word means. According to the first opinion, a “gibben” has a problem with his eyebrows. He either has no eyebrows, or only one. Rabbi Dosa says that the problem is slightly different his eyebrows are long and hang over his eyes. Rabbi Hanina believes that the problem has nothing to do with eyebrows, but rather with the back. The person looks as if he has two backs or two spines." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with defects of the eyes.", + "A harum is unfit [for the priesthood]. What is a harum? One who can paint both of his eyes with one movement. A harum is one who can paint both of his eyes with one movement. This is interpreted to mean that his nose is sunken in, so that he could paint both eyes with one stroke.", + "If both of his eyes were above or both of his eyes were below; or if one one eye was above and the other below; The mishnah now continues to list other eye defects. If both eyes are higher or lower than normal, or if they are uneven, one eye being higher than the other, then he may not serve in the Temple.", + "Or one who sees the room and the ceiling in one glance; This seems to mean that he is cross-eyed, one eye looking up and one eye looking down.", + "Or one who covers [his eyes] from the sun; If he is extremely photo-sensitive, he can’t serve. We should note that the Temple was not shaded, so for a priest who can’t bear the sun, serving at the altar might have been unbearable.", + "A zugdos and a tziran. A zugdos is interpreted as being a person with eyes or eyebrows of different colors. A tziran is one whose eyes constantly water. All of these visual defects disqualify a priest from serving in the Temple.", + "One whose eyelashes have fallen off is unfit [for the priesthood] for appearance sake. The rabbis stated that one whose eyelashes have fallen out cannot serve in the Temple, because his appearance is strange. In other words, he does not have a defect that prevents him from serving, but we don’t let him serve because of his strange appearance." + ], + [ + "One whose eyes are as large as a calf's or as small as those of a goose;
Or whose body is [unduly] large for his limbs, [unduly] small for his limbs; or whose nose is [unduly] large for his limbs, or whose nose is [unduly] small for his limbs;
A tzimem and a zimea. What is tzimea? One whose ears are very small. What is tzimem? One whose ears resemble a sponge.
If some of a person’s limbs, nose or ears are either too large or too small, the person cannot serve as a priest. Basically, we can summarize that the rabbis thought the priest should look normal and have normal proportions.
I might want to add at this point, that in the ancient world it was thought that a strange outer appearance reflects a problematic inner self, perhaps lack of morality or lack of intelligence. While today we know that this is often, and perhaps usually not so, we should, I believe, acknowledge, that it is sometimes so, and that sometimes, mental problems accompany physical defects. It is not surprising that people in the pre-modern world, including rabbis, took this as the rule. Thankfully, though, we now understand better that, as they say, “one should not judge a book by its cover.”
The mishnah is pretty straightforward, so I will explain only where I feel necessary.
Section three: The only section that probably needs explanation is the “tzimem” whose ears resemble a sponge. According to Rashi, this means that they are shrunken and closed. Maimonides interprets it to mean large and swollen. In either case, they are deformed." + ], + [ + "If the upper lip overlaps the lower or the lower lip overlaps the upper, behold this is a blemish.
One whose teeth have fallen out is unfit [for the priesthood] for appearance sake.
If his breasts hang down like those of a woman, or his belly is swollen, or his navel sticks out, or if he is epileptic, even once every few days, or he is subject to melancholy, a me'ushkan and a ba'al gever [all these are unfit for the priesthood].
If he has no testicles, or only one testicle, this is the “meroah ashekh” mentioned in the Torah. Rabbi Ishmael says: anyone whose testicles were crushed. Rabbi Akiva says: anyone who has wind in his testicles. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: one who has a black complexion.
More blemishes!
The first two sections are straightforward so there is no explanation below.
Section three: A “me’ushkan” is one whose testicles are unusually large. A “ba’al gever” is one whose penis is unusually large. Please do not ask me how large is too large. I’m also not sure if they had a measuring stick in the Temple ☺.
Section four: Leviticus 21:20 uses the word “meroah ashekh” to refer to a disqualifying blemish and in this section the rabbis debate its meaning. This is similar to the debate at the end of 7:2.
According to the first three opinions, the “meroah ashekh” has a problem with his testicles, either he is missing them or they are crushed. Rabbi Akiva says that the problem is that he has “wind in his testicles” meaning they are distended. As in 7:2, Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus offers up a completely different explanation. The word “ashekh” sounds like “hoshekh” which means “dark” or “black.” So the “meroah ashekh” is one whose complexion is black." + ], + [ + "If one knocks his ankles [against each other, in walking] or rubs his legs [against each other]; a ba’al pikah and an ikkel. What is an ikkel? One whose knees do not touch each other when he puts his feet together.
If he has a lump protruding from his thumb, or if his heel projects backward, or if his feet are wide like those of a goose.
Or if his fingers lie one above the other.
If they are webbed up to the joint, he is fit, if below the root, if he cuts it, he is also fit.
If he has an additional finger and he cut it off, if there was a bone in it, he is unfit, but if not, he is fit.
If he has additional fingers and additional toes, on each hand and foot six fingers and six toes, [making altogether] twenty-four [fingers and toes]: Rabbi Judah declares him fit, But the sages declare him unfit.
One who has equal strength in both hands: Rabbi declares him unfit; But the sages declare him fit.
A kushi, a gihur, a lavkan, a kippeah, a dwarf, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, one intoxicated, or afflicted with plague marks which are clean – [these defects] disqualify in human beings but not in animals.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: a mad animal is not a choice sacrifice.
Rabbi Eliezer says: also those afflicted with dangling warts they are unfit in human beings but are fit in animals.
Section one: This section has to do with various unusual ways of walking.
Section two: A “lump” seems to be an extra appendage sticking out of either his thumb or big toe.
Section four: If his fingers are webbed, but only up to the middle joint, he is still fit. If they are webbed past the middle joint, he is still fit if he cuts the skin (ouch!).
Section five: If he had an extra finger that had a bone in it, he is unfit, even if he cut off the extra finger (double ouch!). If there was no bone in it, then he is fit, as long as he cuts it off.
Section six: According to II Samuel 21:20, Goliath had an extra digit on each hand and foot. Perhaps this leads Rabbi Judah to say that as long as the number of digits on each hand and foot is the same, he is not defective and can serve in the Temple. The other rabbis disagree. Just as someone with one extra finger or toe is disqualified, so too is one with an extra digit on each hand and foot.
Section seven: The rabbis considered left-handedness to be a weakness, as did pretty much everybody in the ancient world. Rabbi [Judah Ha-Nasi] thought that someone ambidextrous was simply weak in the right hand, and therefore, he was flawed. The other rabbis attributed this ability to the strength of the left and not the weakness of the right, and therefore, held that he could serve in the Temple.
Section eight: A “kushi” is a dark-skinned person. A “gihor” is a red-skinned person. A “lavkan” is an albino. A “kipeah” is a very tall and thin person. All of the types of people listed in this section cannot serve in the Temple because they are unusual and were therefore were considered to be in some way defective.
The inclusion here of a drunken priest and a priest afflicted with a plague, albeit one considered ritually clean, is exceptional for two reasons. First of all, drunkenness and being afflicted with plagues are temporary conditions, whereas the other conditions are permanent. Second, and more importantly, all of the other categories refer to priests with blemishes in their personal appearance, whereas drunkenness is not. It seems likely that the mishnah included these two categories here because they belong with the list of things that disqualify a human being but not an animal.
Section nine: According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, a mad animal may also not be offered as a sacrifice.
Section ten: Rabbi Eliezer adds in another blemish which disqualifies human beings from serving, but not animals from being sacrificed hanging warts (yick!)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday’s mishnah deals with blemishes that do not disqualify human beings, even though they do disqualify animals from being sacrifices.", + "The following are fit in the case of human beings, but unfit in the case of animals:
A father with his son, It is forbidden to slaughter an animal and its offspring on the same day. If one does slaughter both on the same day, the second one cannot be used as a sacrifice (see Hullin, chapter five). However, a priest and his son can both serve in the Temple on the same day.", + "A terefah; A terefah is an animal that has been wounded or is sick and is going to die from the wound or illness (see Hullin, chapter three). If a priest has the signs of being a terefah, he may still serve in the Temple.", + "One born by means of a caesarean section. An animal born through a caesarean section cannot be sacrificed, but a person born of a caesarean section can still serve in the Temple.", + "One with which a sin has been committed or has killed a person; An animal with which a sin (such as a sexual sin) has been committed or an animal has killed a person cannot be offered as a sacrifice (see above 6:12). However, these do not disqualify a priest from serving in the Temple.", + "A priest who contracts an illegal marriage is unfit [for the priesthood] until he vows not to derive any benefit from the woman. Leviticus 21 lists women whom a priest may not marry. If a priest marries such a woman he must divorce her. Marrying such a woman disqualifies him from serving at the altar until he takes a vow not to derive any more benefit from the marriage, neither sexually nor financially. Once he takes the vow he can serve again, even before he divorces her.", + "One who makes himself unclean through contact with the dead is unfit, until he undertakes that he will no longer make himself unclean through the dead. A priest is forbidden from intentionally coming into contact with the dead, except for his seven close relatives. If a priest intentionally defiles himself by coming into contact with the dead, he cannot serve at the altar until he promises to stop doing so. In this case, he need not take a vow, probably because it is less tempting for him to continue to defile himself, then it is for him to continue to be with his prohibited woman." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the laws concerning the human firstborn. There are two special rules with regard to the human first born: 1) he gets a double portion of his father’s inheritance (see Deuteronomy 21:17); 2) he must be redeemed from the priest for five shekels (see Numbers 18:16). Determining who is a firstborn is, however, different for these two matters. Our mishnah defines what firstborn counts as a firstborn for which of these two laws.", + "There is one who is [counted as] a firstborn [with respect to] inheritance but not with respect to redemption from a priest; a firstborn with respect to redemption from a priest but not a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance; a firstborn [with respect to both] inheritance and redemption from a priest; and a firstborn [in respect] to neither inheritance nor redemption from a priest. This is an introduction to the remainder of the chapter. When it comes to who is considered a firstborn for the two relevant matters, all possibilities are open.", + "Which is a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance but not to redemption from a priest? One which follows one which was not viable whose head came forth alive, or one born in the ninth month whose head came out dead, or when a woman aborts something that looks like an animal, beast or bird, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: [it is not considered an opening of the womb] until [the abortion] has the form of a human being. This section lists infants that count as being the firstborn for matters of inheritance but do not need to be redeemed from the priest. The first case seems to be that of twins. The first child is not viable, meaning that he is premature. This child’s head emerges from the womb and then it goes back into the womb, after which the other child is born. The child that is born counts as the first born for inheritance, but does not need to be redeemed. A firstborn male needs to be redeemed only if he “opened his mother’s womb” and since the other child opened his mother’s womb, the second child need not be redeemed. However, he does inherit because he is the first child actually born. There are some problems with this interpretation, namely that it is impossible for one of a set of twins to be premature whereas the other is ready to be born. Nevertheless, it seems possible, in my mind, that the rabbis believed that a pregnant woman could become pregnant again and therefore have “twins,” one of whom is more mature than the other. The second case is where a fully mature child (a nine months child) has his head emerge from the womb but is dead. Then his head goes back into the womb and the other twin is born. The live twin counts as the first born for inheritance but since he didn’t open the womb, he need not be redeemed. Finally, if a woman aborts a fetus that has the shape of an animal or bird, the first opinion counts this as “opening the womb” and therefore the next born male need not be redeemed. However, since the miscarriage did not have a human form, it does not count as the first born for matters of inheritance and the second child receives the double portion. This is Rabbi Meir’s opinion. The other sages hold that if the miscarriage does not have a human form it does not count as having opened the womb. The next child is a first-born for both matters.", + "If [a woman] aborts a sandal or a placenta or a fetus having an articulated shape, or if an embryo came out by pieces, [the infant] which follows after them is a first-born [with respect] to inheritance but not a first-born for redemption from a priest. In all of these cases the woman aborts something that is considered as having opened the womb, but does not count as a firstborn. Therefore, the next born child receives the double inheritance but does not need to be redeemed. The first case is a “sandal.” This seems to be a flat piece of flesh that resembles a sandal. It seems to either accompany a fetus or once was a fetus. The second case is a placenta that inevitably accompanies a fetus, so it is a sign that there was at some point a fetus. The third case is a fetus that has a human shape, and the fourth case is where the aborted fetus is recognizably human but is cut up into pieces. In all of these cases the fetus counts as having opened the womb, but does not count as being the first born for matters of inheritance.", + "If one who never had children married a woman who had already given birth, even if she had given birth when she was a slave but is now free, or [had given birth] when she was a non-Jew but has since converted, if after coming to the Israelite she gave birth, [the infant] is considered a first-born [with respect] to inheritance but not a first-born for redemption from a priest. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: [the infant] is a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance and for redemption from a priest, as it says: “Whatever opens the womb in Israel” (Exodus 13:2), meaning only if it opens the womb in Israel. In these cases a man who has never had children marries a woman who has had children. This is his firstborn but not hers. In general, this means that the child gets the double inheritance from the father, but does not need to be redeemed because he did not open the mother’s womb. This is true even if the first child was conceived and born while the woman was not Jewish (or not free). Since her first free, Jewish child did not open the womb, he is not the first born for redemption. Rabbi Yose the Galilean holds that the child does not count as having opened his mother’s womb unless he is born while she is Jewish and free. He interprets “opens the womb in Israel” to mean that the child opens the womb of a woman who is alread “in Israel,” of Jewish status.", + "If one had children already and married a woman who had never given birth previously Sections five, six, seven and eight describe cases where the child counts as a firstborn with regard to being redeemed by a priest but not for the sake of inheritance. We will start with section five. In this case, the man has already had kids so the first-born with his next wife cannot be the first born for matters of inheritance.", + "Or if she converted when pregnant, or if she was freed when pregnant, and she gave birth; If a woman became pregnant for the first time while a non-Jew or a slave and was then converted or freed and then gave birth, since her child was born while she was already an Israelite, the child counts as a first-born for matters of redemption. However, it does not inherit from its father because the child was conceived while the woman was still not a Jew.", + "If she and a priestess gave birth, she and a Levite’s daughter, she and a woman who had already given birth; This section deals with kids who get mixed up at birth. If a child of a woman who has never given birth is mixed up with a child of a woman who is exempt, such as the son of a priestess, woman of Levite descent or a woman who already gave birth, both children need to be redeemed, because either of them could be the true first born.", + "And similarly [if a woman] who did not wait three months after her husband's death, married and gave birth and it is not known if the infant was born in the ninth month since the death of the first [husband] or in the seventh month since she married the second, it is a firstborn for redemption from a priest but not a first-born [with respect] to inheritance. A widow should wait three months to remarry after her first husband has died in order to determine whether her next child is the first husband’s or the second’s. If she does not wait, and she becomes pregnant immediately, the child does not inherit from either father, because the “certain” inheritors can claim that the child cannot prove who his father was. The child does need to be redeemed because he is a first-born to his mother. However, he will have to redeem himself when he gets older, because he has no “certain” father who is obligated to do so on his behalf.", + "Which is a firstborn both [in respect] of inheritance and for redemption from a priest? If [a woman] miscarries a sac full of blood or full of water or full of pieces of flesh; or if [a woman] miscarries something with the shape of fish or locusts or reptiles, or creeping things, or if she discharges on the fortieth day [of conception], [the infant] which follows after [these discharges] is a firstborn both [in respect] of inheritance and for redemption from a priest. Finally the mishnah lists some cases where the child is a first-born for both matters, even though there might be reason to think otherwise. In all of these cases the woman has either a very early miscarriage or some sort of discharge that does not have the shape of a human fetus. These various types of discharges do not count as having opened her womb and therefore the child born afterwards is considered to be the first-born for both inheritance and redemption." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with matters relating to a child born of a caesarean section, called in Hebrew one who goes out from the wall.", + "A fetus extracted by means of a caesarean section and one that follows neither is a first-born for inheritance or a first-born to be redeemed from a priest. According to the first opinion, a child born through a c-section does not count as a first born because he wasn’t actually “born.” He doesn’t inherit, nor does he need to be redeemed because he didn’t open his mother’s womb. However, the next child doesn’t count as the first born either, because he is not his father’s first child. Also, even if the mother survives the c-section and has another child, it is not considered the first-born for redemption, because his mother already had a viable child, even though it didn’t “open her womb.” We should note that in mishnaic times, it would have been exceedingly rare for a woman to survive a c-section. Nevertheless, the mishnah accounts for the possibility.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: the first is a first-born for inheritance and the second is a first-born as regards [the redemption] with five selas. Rabbi Shimon disagrees completely. The first child, born of a c-section, counts as the first for inheritance, because it is its father’s first born. The second child needs to be redeemed because it “opens its mother’s womb.” It must be redeemed from the priest for five selas, which are equivalent to the five shekels mentioned in the Torah." + ], + [ + "If a man's wife had never before given birth and she gave birth to two males, he gives five sela's to the priest.
If one of them dies within thirty days [of birth] the father is exempt.
If the father dies and the sons survive: Rabbi Meir says: if they gave the five sela's before the property was divided up, then what they gave is given; but if not, they are exempt. But Rabbi Judah says: there is a claim on the property.
If she gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing.
This mishnah deals with a case where twins are born, but it is unclear which child came out first.
Section one: One of these boys is certainly the first born and one is certainly not. Therefore, the father pays five selas to the priest, but does not pay twice.
Section two: A child who dies before he reaches thirty days never has a chance to be redeemed and his father is exempt. In this case, since we don’t know if the first or second born died, the father is exempt, because he can say to the priest, “prove to me that the first born survived and I will give you your five selas.” This accords with the general principle that the burden of proof is upon the claimant.
Section three: If the father dies before he has a chance to redeem one of the sons, then legally the sons must redeem themselves. However, the problem is that each son can claim that he is not the first-born and therefore doesn’t need to be redeemed. According to Rabbi Meir, if they already gave five selas to the priest before the property was divided up, then they cannot get their money back. However, if their father’s property was divided up before the five selas were given to the priest, they are exempt because each son can claim that he is not the first born.
Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that there is a debt hanging over the father’s property and that debt must be paid off, regardless of the fact that we don’t know which of the sons is a first born." + ], + [ + "Two women who had never before given birth gave birth to two males: he [the father] gives ten selas to the priest.
If one of the children dies within thirty days [of its birth], if he gave the redemption money to one priest alone, he returns five selas to him, but if he gave it to two priests, he cannot reclaim the money from them.
If they gave birth to a male and a female or to two males and a female, he gives five selas to the priest.
If they gave birth to two females and a male, or to two males and two females, the priest receives nothing.
If one woman had given birth before and the other had never given birth, and they gave birth to two males, he gives five selas to the priest.
If one of the children died within thirty days [of its birth], the father is exempt.
If the father dies and the sons survive: Rabbi Meir says: if they gave the five sela's before the property was divided up, then what they gave is given; but if not, they are exempt. But Rabbi Judah says: there is a claim on the property.
If they gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing.
This mishnah deals with a case where two different women gave birth for the first time and their children got mixed up. Note that this mishnah is very similar to the mishnah concerning animals whose first borns are mixed up (see 2:7).
Section one: In this case both children are certainly first born males, so the father must give ten selas to the priest.
Section two: In this case one of the sons dies before he reaches thirty days. The father should have given only five selas to one priest. If he had already given ten selas to one priest, then he can ask for five back. However, if he had given five selas to one priest and five to another, he can’t recover either, because both priests can claim that their money was used to redeem the living son.
Section three: If the two women gave birth to one male and one female, or between them two males and one female, then there is only one child who is certainly a first born male. The other male may be the younger brother of the first born female. Therefore, he only gives five selas to the priest.
Section four: If there are two females and either one or two males, then it is possible that neither male is a first-born, so the priest receives nothing.
Section five: In this case, one child is certainly a first-born and one is certainly not. Therefore, he gives five selas to the priest.
Section six: This is the same debate we saw in section three of yesterday’s mishnah. For reference, see there.
Section seven: If the two give birth one to a male and one to a female, the priest receives nothing because we can’t be sure that there was a first born male." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday’s mishnah introduces other various scenarios where children become mixed up and it is unclear if one is liable for redemption as a first born.", + "If two women who had never before given birth married two men and gave birth to two males, the one father gives five selas to the priest and the other gives five selas to the priest. Since both children are first born boys, it is obvious that both fathers must give five selas to a priest to redeem their sons.", + "If one of the children died within thirty days [of its birth], if they gave the redemption money to one priest alone, he returns five selas to them, but if they gave the money to two priests, they are not able to recover it from them. Since one died before reaching thirty days, only one of the fathers needed to redeem his son. It is uncertain which father must give. If they both gave the five selas to the same priest, the priest must return five selas and they can split it between them. However, if they gave the money to two priests, then each priest can claim that he received the money for the living child and he doesn’t have to return it. The fathers will not be able to recover any money.", + "If they gave birth to a male and a female, the fathers are exempt, whereas the son must redeem himself [as in any case he is a first-born]. In this case, the male is definitely a first born but it is unclear who his father is. The father is therefore exempt from redeeming the son. However, the son, who is after all a first born, must redeem himself when he is old enough to do so.", + "If they gave birth to two females and a male or to two females and two males, the priest receives nothing. In this case, it is possible that none of the children is a first born male, and therefore the priest receives nothing." + ], + [ + "If one woman had given birth before and the other had never before given birth, the two women belonging to two husbands, and they gave birth to two males, the one whose wife had never before given birth gives five selas to the priest. In this case, two men each have one wife and one wife has previously given birth and one has not. If they both give birth to a male, it is obvious that the husband of the wife who has never given birth owes five selas.", + "If they gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing. If one woman gives birth to a boy and the other to a girl, the priest doesn’t receive anything because it is possible that the boy was born to the woman who had already given birth.", + "If the son dies within thirty days although he gave the priest [the five selas], he must return them. This section refers to a son who is certainly a first born. If he dies before he is thirty days old, then there was never any obligation for him to be redeemed, and if the father has already given the money to the priest, the priest must return it.", + "If he dies after thirty days, although he has not yet given the five selas, he (the must give them. If the son dies after thirty days, the father is still obligated to redeem his son. In other words, the obligation to redeem comes into existence when the son hits thirty days. The fact that the son has died before the father gave the money to the priest does not annul this obligation.", + "If he dies on the thirtieth day, it is as if he died on the previous day. But Rabbi Akiva says: if he gave [the five selas] he cannot reclaim them, but if he had not yet given, he need not give. According to the first opinion, the obligation to redeem doesn’t exist until the thirty days are completed. Therefore, if the son dies on the thirtieth day, the priest does not receive the five selas and if he has already received them he must return them. Rabbi Akiva says that the status of the thirtieth day is doubtful. If the father has already given the money, then the priest does not need to return it. But if the father has not yet given the money, then the priest cannot make his claim.", + "If the father dies within thirty days, [the infant] is under the presumption of not having been redeemed until proof is brought that he has been redeemed. If the father dies after thirty days, the infant is under the presumption of having been redeemed until he [the son] is told that he was not redeemed. The obligation for the son to be redeemed doesn’t change just because his father dies. However, there is a chance that we don’t know if the father had given the money or not. Therefore, we must make an educated guess. If the father dies within thirty days after his son’s birth, the assumption is that he did not redeem his son, because this would not be typical. Therefore, the son must redeem himself, unless he can prove that his father already did. If, however, the father dies after thirty days, we can assume that he did redeem his son, and the son is exempt, unless people know that he was not redeemed.", + "If both he and his son need to be redeemed, the father takes precedence over his son. Rabbi Judah says: his son comes first for the command to redeem him was upon his father, and the command of his son is upon him. If a man grows up and then has a son, and realizes that he himself has not yet been redeemed, he must first redeem himself and then his son. Perhaps this is because his debt is longer overdue. Alternatively, the reason may be that if he doesn’t redeem himself, who will? Rabbi Judah disagrees. First the father must redeem his son, because that is a mitzvah incumbent upon him. Only afterwards, when he has enough money, must he redeem himself, for his redemption was supposed to be his father’s mitzvah." + ], + [ + "The five selas of a first-born [are paid in] the standard of Tyrian maneh. When we come to reckon how much the father has to pay the priest, the five selas, which are the five shekels mentioned in the Torah, are reckoned in the standard of the Tyrian maneh. A Tyrian sela consists of 14.34 grams of pure silver, so the father would have to give five times this amount.", + "As regards the thirty shekels of a slave and likewise the fifty shekels of the rapist and seducer and the one hundred shekels for one who spreads an evil name in all these cases the payment is in the holy shekel, in the standard of Tyrian maneh. Any payment that is given as a fixed monetary amount in the Torah must be paid out in holy shekel, evaluated according to the standard of the Tyrian maneh, just as is the case with redeeming the first-born. There are four such cases listed here: 1) If an ox kills a slave, the owner of the ox pays the owner of the slave thirty shekels (Exodus 21:32). 2) If a man seduces a virgin, he pays the father fifty shekels (Exodus 22:15-16). 3) If he rapes a virgin, he pays fifty shekels (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). 4) If a husband defames his wife by falsely claiming that she was not a virgin on their wedding day, he is fined 100 shekels (Deuteronomy 22:19).", + "All of these are redeemed with money or the equivalent of money with the exception of shekel payments. In all cases where something needs to be redeemed, such as a first born son or an item dedicated to the Temple, the redemption can be done either with money or with something of equivalent value. The redemption need not be done just with coins. The exception is the half shekel that is paid on a yearly basis to the Temple in Jerusalem. This half shekel must be paid in coinage." + ], + [ + "We must not redeem [a first-born] with slaves, nor with notes of indebtedness, nor with immovable properties, nor with objects of hekdesh. While a first born can be redeemed with the equivalent of money (as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah), he must be redeemed with things that are similar to money, which is a type of “moveable property.” Thus a firstborn could be redeemed by giving the priest five selas worth of grain, or five selas worth of meat, for example. In contrast, slaves, while obviously moveable, are compared with land, and therefore firstborns cannot be redeemed with either slaves or land. If someone has a debt document in which his fellow owes him five shekels, he cannot use it to redeem his first born, because this debt document is not the same as actual money. It has no inherent value. The word “hekdesh” means property dedicated to the Temple and the word does not really belong here in this mishnah, because one cannot use Temple property to redeem a first born. It is probably here due to the similarity between this mishnah and Bava Metzia 4:9 and Shevuot 6:5. The Talmud interprets it to mean that just as one cannot redeem a first born with slaves, etc., so too one cannot redeem property dedicated to the Temple with these things.", + "If one gives a written acknowledgment to a priest that he owes him five selas he is bound to give them to him, although his son is not considered as redeemed. Therefore, if the priest wishes to give him [the note of indebtedness] as a gift he is permitted to do so. A first born must be redeemed by the father actually giving money to the priest. If the father writes a note to the priest that he is liable to give him five shekels, the father has to give the priest five shekels, but this does not count as redeeming his son. The priest can give these five shekels back to the father, because they didn’t count towards the redemption. The priest cannot, however, give back the five shekels used to redeem the son.", + "If one set aside the redemption money of his son and it became lost, he is responsible for it, because it says: “Shall be for you [but] you shall surely redeem” (Numbers 18:15). If someone sets aside five shekels to use to redeem his son, and then loses them, he must restore them. This is learned midrashically from the verse in Numbers. The five shekels are only effective for redemption once they have reached the priest’s hands. Before this moment, he is not redeemed." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first-born takes a double share in the inheritance. Our mishnah mentions several limitations on this halakhah.", + "The first-born takes a double share of the father's estate but he does not take a double share of the mother’s estate. The first born takes a double share in his father’s estate, but not in his mother’s, should the sons inherit from their mother.", + "He also does not take a double share of the improvement in the value of the estate. If the value of the father’s estate has gone up from the time of the father’s death before the division of the estate, the first born takes his double share only from the value of the estate at the time of death. For instance, if there are three sons, the first born will take half of the estate. If the estate is worth 1,000 at death, he takes 500 and the other sons take 250 each. But if the estate goes up 300 in value from death to division, he only takes 100 of the added value.", + "Nor from what will fall due [to the estate] as he does of what is held in possession. If there is money or property that will eventually belong to his father but does not belong to the father at the time of his death, the first born son does not take a double share of it. For instance, let’s say the father dies before his own father dies. When the grandfather dies, the grandsons will inherit the part of the estate that their father would have inherited. Out of this part the first born grandson does not take a double portion.", + "Nor can a woman claim with her ketubah [from these], Nor can daughters claim their support. Nor can a yavam make a claim [from these]. None of these take from the improvement in the value of the estate, nor of what will fall to the estate as they do of what is now held in possession. There are three other instances where collection is limited in the same way that the first born’s collection is limited. 1: A woman collecting her ketubah payment from her husband’s estate. 2: Girls being maintained by the money left over from their father’s estate. 3: A man (yavam) who has performed yibbum (levirate marriage) with his dead brother’s wife. The yavam inherits all of his brother’s property. He would also inherit his brother’s portion of his father’s estate, but he would only take from his father’s estate and not his mother’s. Similarly, he would not take his brother’s share from the improvement. Finally, he would only take his brother’s share of his father’s estate if his father dies first, and they don’t have time to divide up the property before his brother dies and he does yibbum." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAccording to Leviticus 25, if a person grows poor and sells his ancestral lands, the lands return to him during the Jubilee year. From here we can learn that if a person receives land as an inheritance and then he sells that land, the land is returned to him during the Jubilee year.", + "The following do not return [to their owners] in Jubilee year: Our mishnah deals with cases where a person inherits land, it does not go back to its original owners to be divided up again during the Jubilee, in the same way that land that a person inherits does not leave his possession during the Jubilee.", + "The share of the first-born, The extra portion that a son receives for being the first born. When the Jubilee year comes, this portion stays with the first born.", + "[The inheritance of] one who inherits his wife's [estate] One who inherits his wife’s estate. Although this is not his own ancestral land, when the Jubilee years comes, it stays with him and does not go back to his wife’s family.", + "[And of] one who performs yibbum with his sister-in-law As we learned in mishnah nine, when a brother performs yibbum, he inherits his brother’s estate. Again, this property stays with him at the Jubilee.", + "And a present, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: a present is like a sale. There is a debate over whether a present is restored during the Jubilee year. According to Rabbi Meir, if a person gives a piece of land to someone else as a present, the land does not revert to its original owner during the Jubilee year. The other sages disagree and hold that a present is just like a sale.", + "Rabbi Elazar says: all of these return in the Jubilee. Rabbi Elazar takes a more radical approach and holds that all of this property returns during the Jubilee to its original owners.", + "R. Johanan ben Berokah says: if one inherits his wife's estate, he returns it to the members of the family and he deducts from the purchase money. Rabbi Yohanan ben Berokah disagrees with Rabbi Meir as well and holds that a man must return his wife’s inheritance to her family at the Jubilee. However, he seems to hold that the family pays him back for the property. From this amount, he should reduce the amount that he benefited by owning the property for the years that he owned it. In this way, he doesn’t unduly profit." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe last chapter of Bekhorot deals with the laws of animal tithes. Leviticus 27:32 states: “All tithes of the herd or flock of all that passes under the shepherd’s staff, every tenth one shall be holy to the Lord.” The laws of animal tithes are in tractate Bekhorot because they are similar in many ways to the laws regarding an animal first born. The main difference is that while a first born pure animal must be given to the priest, animal tithes are brought to Jerusalem where they are eaten as sacrifices (shelamim) by their owners.", + "The law concerning the tithe of cattle is in force in the Land and outside the Land, in the days when the Temple exists and when it does not exist, The tithing of animals is in force at all times, and in all places. Once the Temple was destroyed, one would have had to wait until the animal became blemished, and then it could be eaten anywhere. We should note that from Talmudic times and onward the laws of animal tithes were no longer observed.", + "[It applies] to hullin (non- animals only but not to consecrated animals. Only non-sacred animals must be tithed.", + "It applies both to cattle and flock animals, but they are not tithed together. Both herd (cows) and flock animals (sheep and goats) must be tithed, but they cannot be tithed together. This is because the verse says “of the herd and of the flock,” thereby separating them into two categories.", + "To lambs and to goats, and they are tithed together. Different types of flock animals can be tithed together.", + "To the new and the old, but they are not tithed together. However, animals born in different years are not tithed together. We will learn more about how an animal’s year is determined in mishnayot five and six.", + "Now it might be logical: seeing that new and old animals which are not treated as kilayim in regard to one another are yet not tithed one for the other, lambs and goats which are treated as kilyaim in regard to one another, all the more should not be tithed one for the other. Scripture therefore states: “And of the flock” all kinds of flock are considered one [for purposes of tithing]. The mishnah now notes a discrepancy in logic. Goats and sheep are considered kilayim (mixed species) together, meaning they cannot be crossbred. In contrast, new and old animals of the same type are of course not kilayim and can be crossbred. It would therefore make sense for new and old animals to be tithed together but not for sheep and goats to be tithed together. Therefore, the Torah states “of the flock” thereby combining all flock animals into one category." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nA person must tithe the tenth animal of each of his “herds.” The question is how far apart can animal’s be and still be considered as belonging to the same herd? Our mishnah deals with this issue.", + "Animals are combined for purposes of tithing so long as they can still pasture within the distance that cattle wander. If the animals are close enough together such that the shepherd can keep an eye on them while they are out pasturing, they are considered as one herd.", + "And what is the distance over which they wander while pasturing? Sixteen mils. This distance is determined to be 16 mils. A mil is about a kilometer, so 16 mils is equivalent to about 10 miles. If an owner has animals wandering around and grazing at less than this distance, they all count as one herd. But if they go beyond this distance, they don’t count as one herd and if there are ten of them born in one year, they do not join together for the purpose of tithing.", + "If there was between two groups of animals a distance of thirty-two mils, they do not combine for the purpose of tithing. If however there was one in the middle [of the distance of thirty-two mils] he brings them into the middle and tithes them. Animals separated by 32 mils, are considered to be at a “wandering distance” from one another, but not a “pasturing distance.” If all of the animals are separated by more than 16 mils, they do not join together for the sake of tithing. However, if there is one animal exactly in between the two separate herds, this animal can join the two separate herds together, and they are tithed together. In other words, if the herd to the east is 16 mils from the one in the middle which is 16 mils from the herd to the west, the middle animal joins the other two herds together.", + "Rabbi Meir says: the [river] Jordan is regarded as forming a division as regards the tithing of animals. Rabbi Meir says that if one has herds on opposite sides of the Jordan, they do not join together for tithing, because the Jordan separates them." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with animals that are exempt from the cattle tithe.\nOur mishnah mentions the “kalbon.” This is a surcharge that one has to pay when one pays the years half-shekel to the Temple. There are two relevant rules here: 1) if a father pays the ½ shekel for his son, he need not pay the kalbon. 2) If two people pay their ½ shekel together they pay only one kalbon and not two.", + "An animal bought or given as a present is exempt from the law of cattle tithe. A person is liable to tithe only the animals that are born into his property, not those that he bought or was given as a present.", + "If brothers became partners, though they are still bound to pay the kalbon [surcharge], they are exempt from the tithe of cattle. And when they become liable to tithe of cattle, they are exempt from paying the kalbon. This section refers to two different types of partnerships between brothers who have inherited from their father. The first type is when they have already divided up the inheritance and then pooled their money together to form a business partnership. In such a case they are liable for the kalbon as are all partners who pay each other’s kalbon, but they are exempt from paying the tithe on animals since partners do not pay this tithe on their shared animals. The second partnership is one in which they have not yet divided up the inheritance. In such a case the money is treated as if it still belonged to the father. They are liable for the cattle tithe but they are exempt from the kalbon, for a father who pays the half shekel for his son is exempt from the kalbon (for more information on the kalbon, see the first chapter of tracate Shekalim).", + "If they acquired from the estate, they are bound [to tithe them]. But if not, they are exempt from tithing. If the brothers bought animals from their father’s estate, when these animals give birth, they must tithe them. However, if they didn’t buy the animals from the estate, but rather shared the money from the estate and used it to buy animals, then the animals born to them are exempt, because they are owned by partners.", + "If they first divided up the estate and then again became partners, they are bound to pay the kalbon and are exempt from tithe of cattle. Once the brothers divide their father’s estate, each piece becomes each brother’s own property. The property is disconnected from the father, and therefore they must pay the kalbon. But when they form a partnership they become exempt from the animal tithe. Note that this is a repeat of the halakhah found in section two." + ], + [ + "All [domesticated animals] enter the shed to be tithed except kilayim, a terefah, offspring brought forth by means of a caesarean section, an animal too young for sacrifice, and an “orphan”. There are several types of animals that do not need to be tithed: 1) Kilayim the offspring of a mixed species. For instance, if a ram and a female goat have offspring, the offspring need not be tithed. 2) A terefah an animal with a physical defect that would cause it to die. 3) An animal born through a c-section. Such an animal doesn’t need to be tithed, because it is not, in a sense, considered to have been born. 4) An animal too young to be sacrificed an animal cannot be sacrificed until it is seven days old. It cannot be tithed until that age either. 5) An orphan animal. This is explained in the next section.", + "And what is an “orphan”? When its mother has died during its birth or was slaughtered [and subsequently gave birth.] But Rabbi Joshua says: even if the mother has been killed, if the hide is still intact the offspring is not an ‘orphan’ animal. The issue of the orphan is related to Leviticus 22:27, which states that an animal needs to be “under its mother” for seven days before it can be offered up as a sacrifice. If an animal is an orphan it need not be tithed, although it can eventually be sacrificed. According to the first opinion, if the mother doesn’t survive the birth, the offspring is an orphan and is not tithed. Rabbi Joshua says that as long as the mother’s hide is intact when the offspring is born, it is not an orphan. Albeck relates this to the practice of covering the offspring in its mother’s hide to keep it warm should the mother die during, or right before childbirth. Such an animal is “under its mother” and is therefore subject to the tithe." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with when a person is supposed to tithe his animals. The concept is that one tithes one out of every ten animals born in a given year, not one out of every ten animals. Therefore, our mishnah and tomorrow’s mishnah must determine when this year begins.", + "There are three periods [lit. threshing floors] for the tithe of cattle: in the peras of Pesah, in the peras of Atzeret ( and in the peras of the Feast [of Sukkot], the words of Rabbi Akiva. “Peras” means “before” and it is interpreted in the Talmud as being fifteen days. According to Rabbi Akiva, a few weeks before all three of the pilgrimage holidays it becomes forbidden to eat any of the animals that were born since the previous holiday until he first separates any necessary animal tithes. These periods are referred to as “threshing floors” which is the end of the processing of grain. At the threshing floor produce becomes liable for tithing. The language is borrowed from that context.", + "Ben Azzai says: on the twenty-ninth of Adar, on the first of Sivan and on the twenty-ninth of Av. Ben Azzai lists the three dates in a slightly different manner. The twenty-ninth of Adar is about two weeks before Pesah, the first of Sivan is less than a week before Shavuot, and the twenty-ninth of Av is one month before Rosh Hashanah.", + "Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: on the first of Nisan, on the first of Sivan and on the twenty-ninth of Elul. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon also provide slightly different dates the first of Nissan (the month with Pesah), the first of Sivan (the month with Shavuot) and the twenty-ninth of Elul, the day before Rosh Hashanah. One needs to tithe before Rosh Hashanah because Rosh Hashanah is, according to these two rabbis, the new year for animal tithes. We shall learn more about this in mishnah six (see also Rosh Hashanah 1:1).", + "And why did they say the twenty-ninth of Elul and not the first of Tishrei? Because it is a Yom Tov and you cannot tithe on a Yom Tov. Consequently they moved it up to the twenty-ninth of Elul. One cannot tithe on Rosh Hashanah because it is a festival (Yom Tov). Therefore, they moved the day up to the last day of the preceding month, Elul.", + "Rabbi Meir says: the first of Elul is the New Year for the tithe of cattle. Rabbi Meir disagrees with Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon with regard to the date for the new year for animal tithes. While they hold that it is on the first day of Tishrei, he holds that it is on the first of Elul. The anonymous opinion in the first mishnah of Rosh Hashanah accords with Rabbi Meir.", + "Ben Azzai says: those born in Elul are tithed by themselves. Ben Azzai doubts whether the halakhah is according to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon or Rabbi Meir. The result of this doubt is that animals born in Elul are tithed on their own, because we don’t know if they should be tithed with those born before them (Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon’s opinion) or those born after them (Rabbi Meir’s opinion)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to discuss in what situation animals born at different times of the year combine for matters of tithing.", + "All those born from the first of Tishrei until the twenty-ninth of Elul combine [for matters of tithing]. Five lambs born before Rosh Hashanah and five born after Rosh Hashanah do not combine. The new year for tithing begins on Rosh Hashanah, the first of Tishrei and goes all the way to the 29th of Elul, the end of the year. Any animals born that year can and must be tithed together. This means that if ten sheep, for instance, are born that year, the owner must set aside one sheep as a tithe. However, as the mishnah illustrates, if five are born before Rosh Hashanah and five after, he need not set aside a tithe at all. To be even more extreme, if nine were born on the twenty-ninth of Elul and one was born on the first of Tishrei, no tithe must be given.", + "But five lambs born before the period [of tithing] and five after the period [of tithing] do combine [for tithing]. In mishnah five we learned about periods of the year in which one is liable to tithe. These three periods are not significant with regard to animals joining together to become liable for tithing. So if five are born before one of these periods, when the period comes he need not yet tithe. When another five are born, when the next period comes along he will have to tithe, as long as they were all born in the same calendar year.", + "If so, why did they speak of three periods for the tithe of cattle? Until the arrival of the [tithing] period it is permitted to sell and slaughter [the animals], but when the period has arrived he must not kill, but if he killed, he is exempt. The mishnah asks the logical question if the tithing periods do not effect the combining of animals, then what significance do they have? The answer is that when a tithing period comes, one must tithe one out of every ten animals that has been born from the time of the last tithing period. It is forbidden to slaughter or sell the animals until they are tithed, or at least counted for purposes of tithing. However, if he transgresses this and does slaughter the animal, there is no punishment, nor is the animal prohibited." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAs often happens with the Mishnah, the most important information is placed last. The final two mishnayot of the tractate discuss how the animal tithe is actually done.", + "How does one tithe animals? He brings them to a shed and makes for them a small opening so that two cannot go out at the same time. And he counts them with a rod: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. And the one that comes out tenth he marks with red chalk and he says: “Behold, this is [the tithe].” This section explains the basic procedure for tithing animals. This seems to be related to the description of the animal tithe in Leviticus 27:32, “All tithes of the herd or flock of all that passes under the shepherd’s staff, every tenth one shall be holy to the Lord.” In order to fulfill this mitzvah, there must be a formal counting, and it is preferable that this formal counting be done with a rod, counting the animal’s one at a time.", + "If he did not mark it, or if he did not count them with a rod, or if he counted them while they were crouching or standing, they are still considered tithed. As long as he counts the animals that he is tithing, he has fulfilled his duty and the animal that comes out tenth is tithed. It is better to count them with a rod, while they are passing through the opening and to mark the tenth one, but as long as he counts them one at a time, everyone agrees that the tithe counts.", + "If he had one hundred [lambs] and he took ten or if he had ten and he took one [without counting], this is not [a valid] tithe. Rabbi Yose bar Judah says: this is a [valid] tithe. However, if he takes out the tithed animals without formally counting, then the tithe does not count. Rabbi Yose bar Judah disagrees and says that even in this case, the tithe counts.", + "If one [of the lambs] already counted jumped back into the flock [in the shed] they are all exempt. If one of the lambs that has already been counted jumps back into the flock that has not yet been counted, then there will be a mixture of animals exempt from tithing with those liable for tithing. In such a case the law is lenient and the entire group is exempt.", + "If one of the lambs that was a tithe jumped back into the flock [in the shed], they all go to pasture until they become unfit for sacrifice, and the owners may eat them in their unfit state. However, if one of the animals that were set aside to be tithed gets mixed up with untithed animals, then every animal in the pen is potentially tithe. In such a case all of them must go out to pasture until they become blemished. A blemished tithe animal can then be eaten by its owners." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of the tractate deals with a case where the person erred when counting his animal tithes or a case where multiple animals came out of the pen at the same time. An interesting phenomenon to note in this mishnah is the power of words if he calls something the tenth animal, it is often holy, even if it was not actually the tenth animal that came out of the pen. This matches the typical rabbinic emphasis on the power of language to actually transform the status of real things.", + "If two [lambs] came out at the same time, he counts them in pairs. If all of the animals come out in pairs (kind of like Noah’s ark!) then he counts them in pairs. When he gets to the tenth pair, which are the 19th and 20th animals, both are holy. Another explanation for this section is that if two come out at the same time he counts them as two, as if they came out one at a time.", + "If he counted [the two] as one, the ninth and the tenth are spoiled. If he counted two as one, then both the ninth and tenth have been spoiled. The animal that he calls ninth is the tenth and should have been the tithe. The animal that he calls tenth is not the tenth but rather the eleventh. In other words, one actually is the tenth and one is called the tenth. Therefore both animals have to go out to pasture and can be eaten only when they are blemished.", + "If the ninth and the tenth came out at the same time, the ninth and the tenth are spoiled. If the ninth and tenth both come out at the same time then both are potentially the tenth and as in the previous section, both must go out to pasture until they become blemished at which point they may be eaten.", + "If he called the ninth the tenth, the tenth the ninth and the eleventh the tenth, all three are holy: the ninth can be eaten when it becomes blemished, the tenth is the tithe and the eleventh is sacrificed as a shelamim, and it can make a substitute, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah said: can one substitute make another substitute? They said in the name of Rabbi Meir: if it were a substitute, it would not have been sacrificed. Here he really messed up the counting. The ninth, which he called the tenth, can be eaten when it becomes blemished. The tenth is the actual tithe, even though he called it the eleventh. The eleventh, which he also called tenth, has to be offered up as a shelamim offering. There is now a debate whether or not it is possible for the eleventh animal that is offered as a shelamim to make another animal into its substitute. Making a substitute means that if one tries to substitute the holy animal for another animal, the substituted animal becomes holy, even though the original one remains holy. Rabbi Meir says that this eleventh animal can make a substitute. Rabbi Judah questions this because in his opinion this animal is itself a substitute for the tenth animal, the real tithe. Since we hold that a substitute animal cannot make another substitute (and if one tries to do so, the substitution has no validity) this shelamim cannot effect a substitute. Rabbi Meir responds that the eleventh animal offered as a shelamim is not a “substitute” for if it was it couldn’t be sacrificed as a shelamim. Rabbi Meir holds that if an animal is substituted for a tithed animal, the substituted animal cannot be sacrificed. Since this is not a substitute but rather a regular shelamim, it can make another animal into a substitute.", + "If he called the ninth the tenth, the tenth the tenth and the eleventh the tenth, the eleventh is not holy. The following is the rule: wherever the name of the tenth [animal] has not been taken away from it, the eleventh is not consecrated. If he makes a mistake, but does call the tenth the tenth, then the eleventh is not holy. The general rule explains if the tenth receives its proper appellation, then anything that follows it is not holy. However, the ninth, which he accidentally called the tenth is still holy and must go out to pasture until it is blemished at which point it can be eaten. Congratulations! We have finished Tractate Bekhorot! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Although Bekhorot was mostly full of technical information, we should not lose sight of the religious idea that stands behind the idea of the holiness of the bekhor. As is well-known, the final plague on Egypt was the slaying of the first-born. The loss of every first-born, animal and human, was so great in the eyes of the Egyptians that they finally allowed the children of Israel to leave Egypt. I have often wondered why this plague caused them to finally let the people go? Surely many, perhaps even more, people died in the other horrible plagues. What was it about this plague that made it so much worse than the others? Regardless of how we answer that question, after that event, the first-borns of Israel owed God their lives and in order to express this debt, they had to be redeemed. As a first-born male, I was redeemed when I reached thirty days, and since my first child is a male, I redeemed him when he reached thirty days. While I don’t remember the first event, I remember the redemption of my own son as being a meaningful event in his life, as well as mine and my wife’s. Again, congrats on making it through Bekhorot. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Erkhin." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה בכורות", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file