Back
Bekhorot
Daf 26bדְּעִיקָּר לָאו לְכַפָּרָה אָתֵי – מַשְׁהֵי לָהּ אוֹ דִּלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּעוֹלָה נַמִי מְכַפְּרָא אַעֲשֵׂה – לָא מַשְׁהֵי לָהּ?
being brought for atonement is not its primary function, there is a concern that one might keep it? Or perhaps, since a burnt offering also effects atonement for neglecting to perform a positive mitzva, one does not keep the animal longer than necessary.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַתּוֹלֵשׁ צֶמֶר מִבְּכוֹר תָּם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנּוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם, שְׁחָטוֹ – אָסוּר. טַעֲמָא דְּתוֹלֵשׁ, הָא נִתְלַשׁ – שָׁרֵי; וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן עוֹלָה, דְּלָא מַשְׁהֵי לָהּ!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita : With regard to one who plucks the wool from an unblemished firstborn, even though it later developed a blemish and the owner then slaughtered it, use of the wool is prohibited. The Gemara infers: The reason use of the wool is prohibited is because he plucks it. But if it was torn out not by human intervention it is permitted. And this is correct all the more so with regard to a burnt offering, where one does not keep the animal any longer than necessary.
הוּא הַדִּין אֲפִילּוּ נִתְלַשׁ נַמִי אָסוּר, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי ״תּוֹלֵשׁ״ – לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דַּעֲקַבְיָא, דִּבְבַעַל מוּם – אֲפִילּוּ בְּתוֹלֵשׁ נַמִי שָׁרֵי.
The Gemara rejects this proof: Actually, the same is true even if the wool of an unblemished firstborn animal was torn out by some other means; it is also prohibited. And the reason that the baraita teaches the halakha using the term: One who plucks, is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Akavya ben Mahalalel, as he maintains that in the case of a blemished animal, discussed in the latter clause of the baraita , even if one plucks the wool it is permitted. Since the latter clause discusses a case where one plucked the wool himself, it is inferred that the former clause discusses the same situation.
וְהָאֲנַן ״נָשַׁר״ תְּנַן! תְּנָא ״נָשַׁר״ – לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּרַבָּנַן, תְּנָא ״תּוֹלֵשׁ״ – לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דַּעֲקַבְיָא.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that the hair was shed rather than plucked? The Gemara explains that the mishna taught a case where the hair of the blemished animal was shed in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, who deem the wool prohibited even in such a case. Conversely, the baraita taught a case where one plucks the hair in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Akavya.
״צֶמֶר הַמְדוּלְדָּל״ כו׳. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי ״אֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה עִם הַגִּיזָּה״? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כָּל שֶׁעִיקָּרוֹ הָפוּךְ כְּלַפֵּי רֹאשׁוֹ. רַב נָתָן בַּר אוֹשַׁעֲיָא אָמַר: כָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְמַעֵךְ עִם הַגִּיזָּה.
§ The mishna teaches that it is permitted to derive benefit from wool that is dangling from a firstborn but was not completely shed if it appears to be part of the fleece when the animal is shorn after death, but otherwise it is prohibited. The Gemara inquires: What is considered: That which does not appear to be part of the fleece? Rabbi Elazar says that Reish Lakish says: This includes any strand of wool whose root is overturned and is facing toward the top,
וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מַאי טַעֲמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַב נָתָן בַּר אוֹשַׁעֲיָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא, קָסָבַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לְפִי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְגִיזָּה בְּלֹא נִימִין הַמְדוּלְדָּלוֹת. הדרן עלך הלוקח בהמה
And what is the reason Reish Lakish did not state his explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rav Natan bar Oshaya, whose explanation is the more straightforward meaning of the phrase: That which does not appear to be part of the fleece? Rabbi Ile’a says: Reish Lakish holds that the Sages did not deem strands of wool that are not compressed together with the rest of the fleece prohibited, because it is impossible for there to be fleece without dangling hairs. If Rav Natan bar Oshaya’s explanation were accepted, it would never be permitted to use such fleece of a dead firstborn animal. Consequently, Reish Lakish explains the statement of the mishna in a more lenient manner.
SUMMARY
The chapter started as a direct continuation of the previous chapter, which addressed various cases of uncertainties involving the firstborn offspring of a kosher animal. It then focused primarily on the prohibition against shearing firstborns. It was concluded that one who purchases a female animal from a gentile must treat its next male offspring as at least an uncertain firstborn, unless it is known that the animal had given birth previously. This is true regardless of the age at which the animal is purchased. The offspring of an animal bought from a Jew is completely non-sacred, as it is assumed the seller would have notified the buyer if the animal had not already given birth. The chapter then addressed the definition of giving birth with respect to the mitzva of the firstborn. In a small animal birth is defined as the expulsion of a murky discharge, in a large animal it is the emergence of an afterbirth, and in a woman it is the appearance of a fetal sac or an afterbirth. It was also determined that an animal does not become pregnant within thirty days of expelling the type of murky discharge that exempts it from having its future offspring counted a firstborn. Therefore, if it was impregnated within thirty days of a discharge, that discharge does not exempt the animal. A large animal that expels a mass of congealed blood is also exempt, as it is assumed that the mass originated from a fetus. Nevertheless, it does not impart ritual impurity through contact or carrying, because the embryo itself was dissolved and nullified. Clarifying this halakha led to a discussion concerning whether a substance nullified by a majority is considered completely nullified, or whether it is merely a dormant component whose status can be revived. The Sages explored whether the fact that an animal is nursing an offspring indicates it has given birth, and concluded that one who purchases a nursing animal from a gentile may assume it has already given birth. Furthermore, they sought to clarify whether it may be assumed that the nursing young animal is the offspring of the animal from which it is nursing. This involved an analysis of the specifics of the principle that the halakha follows the majority. It was determined that this principle applies absolutely only in the case of an evident majority, i.e., one that is extant; if the majority is based solely on general statistical information, there are exceptions to this principle. In the second part of the chapter the Sages examined the prohibition against shearing a firstborn animal. It was concluded that although shearing the hair is prohibited, plucking it is permitted if one does not intend to derive benefit from the hair but merely to clear it away in order to examine a blemish. Furthermore, it is permitted to pluck the hair on a Festival in order to facilitate the animal’s slaughter, as this is considered uprooting an item from its place of growth in an unusual manner. Although the hair of a blemished firstborn is permitted by Torah law, the Sages issued a decree that it is forbidden even after the animal’s death, due to the concern that the owner might detain the animal longer than necessary and come to violate a Torah prohibition by shearing it or performing labor with it. The extent to which this prohibition applies is a matter of dispute, but the halakha is that any hair shed during the animal’s lifetime is prohibited in all cases. If there is detached wool that remains on a slaughtered animal’s body, it is permitted if it appears to be part of the fleece.
INTRO
And the Lord spoke to Aaron: And I have given you the charge of My wave offerings; even of all the sacred items of the children of Israel I have given them to you for a consecrated portion, and to your sons, as a due forever. (Numbers 18:8)
But the firstborn of an ox, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are holy: You shall sprinkle their blood against the altar, and shall make their fat smoke for an offering made by fire, for a pleasing aroma to the Lord. And their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh, it shall be yours. (Numbers 18:17–18)
You shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest, and of the outflow of your presses; you shall give to Me your firstborn sons. So you shall do with your oxen, and with your sheep; seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me. (Exodus 22:28–29)
This chapter addresses the topic of firstborn kosher animals, primarily how they are given to a priest and how the priest must treat them. With regard to a firstborn son the Torah states that redemption must be performed when the baby reaches thirty days of age. With regard to a kosher species of animal the Torah does not say when it must be given to a priest. Is there a fixed time? Furthermore, as the owner of the animal has the right to give it to any priest he wishes, may a priest pay the owner in some way to persuade the owner to select him? The Torah places a time limit within which the priest must eat the firstborn: “You shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year in the place that the Lord shall choose,” i.e., in Jerusalem. The meaning of the expression “year by year” is unclear. Does this mean that the animal must be eaten within its first year, or perhaps within the calendar year in which it is born? Furthermore, does this restriction apply only to an unblemished firstborn, which is sacrificed in Jerusalem, or does it also apply to a blemished firstborn that is eaten elsewhere? The determination of a firstborn as blemished has significant ramifications. Slaughtering unblemished offerings outside the Temple is prohibited, and at the time that the Temple existed this act was punishable with karet. For this reason, declaring a firstborn animal blemished requires specific expertise and experience in determining the differences between permanent and temporary blemishes. The Sages decreed that only an expert had license to rule on blemishes, and any firstborn that was slaughtered without expert advice is forbidden. In light of this halakha, the chapter discusses a case where a priest slaughtered the animal, and only subsequently an expert declared that it was blemished. If a firstborn was slaughtered without the ruling of an expert, causing the priest financial loss, is he entitled to compensation? In this context, the chapter examines similar questions with regard to erroneous halakhic rulings. Are such rulings valid? What is the liability of the one who issued such a ruling? If a judge errs in judgment, must he compensate for the loss he caused? Likewise, if a judge accepts payment to issue his ruling, is it valid? Are there times when it is permitted for a judge to receive payment for judging a case? Establishing a firstborn animal as blemished also has financial implications. An unblemished firstborn must be taken by the priest to Jerusalem and sacrificed there, whereas a blemished firstborn may be slaughtered and eaten anywhere. After the destruction of the Temple, when it was no longer possible to sacrifice unblemished firstborns, the priest would have to continue to care for the animal until it became blemished, and until then he could derive no benefit from it. Once it was blemished he could slaughter it and eat it, or sell its meat. Given the potential benefit this ruling provides to a priest, may an expert priest rule with regard to his own firstborn animals to permit himself to slaughter them, or is he considered biased and therefore unfit to issue such a ruling? The Sages realized that there were priests who were suspected either of inflicting a wound resulting in a blemish in a firstborn animal, which is prohibited by Torah law, or of selling the meat of a firstborn for a high price, as though it were normal meat. If a priest has been found suspect of performing such actions, to what extent may one trust him with related issues? The chapter ends with a discussion of those who are suspected of selling prohibited items, e.g., produce of the Sabbatical Year or tithes. Which items may one purchase from them and which may one not purchase? If one is suspected of transgressing a certain prohibition, is he also suspected of violating other prohibitions? Is there a difference between various prohibitions in this regard? Finally, if he repents, to what extent may he then be trusted, and what is his subsequent status? These are the main topics explored in this chapter.
מתני׳ עַד כַּמָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּיבִין לִיטַּפֵּל בַּבְּכוֹר? בְּדַקָּה – שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וּבְגַסָּה – חֲמִשִּׁים יוֹם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בְּדַקָּה – שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים. אָמַר לוֹ הַכֹּהֵן בְּתוֹךְ הַזְּמַן: ״תְּנֵהוּ לִי״ – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִתְּנֶנּוּ לוֹ. וְאִם בַּעַל מוּם הוּא, וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״תְּנֵהוּ לִי שֶׁאוֹכְלֶנּוּ״ – מוּתָּר. וּבִשְׁעַת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, אִם הָיָה תָּמִים, אָמַר לוֹ: ״תֵּן וְאַקְרִבֶנּוּ״ – מוּתָּר.
Until when must an Israelite tend to and raise a firstborn
הַבְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל שָׁנָה בְּשָׁנָה, בֵּין תָּם בֵּין בַּעַל מוּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תֹאכְלֶנּוּ שָׁנָה בְּשָׁנָה״. נוֹלַד לוֹ מוּם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ – רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ כָּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.
The firstborn animal is eaten year by year,
TOSAFOT
מתני' בדקה שלשים יום כי הך פלוגתא איכא לענין טיפול אבדה (ב"מ דף כח):
גמ׳ מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אֲמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ תִּתֶּן לִי״ – ״כֵּן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְצֹאנֶךָ״.
The mishna teaches that an Israelite must raise a firstborn animal for thirty or fifty days, depending on the type of animal, before giving it to a priest. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Kahana said: They are derived from a verse, as the verse states: “You shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest, and of the outflow of your presses; you shall give to Me your firstborn sons. So you shall do with your oxen, and with your sheep; seven days it shall be with its mother, on the eighth day you shall give it to Me” (Exodus 22:28–29). The second part of verse 28 is juxtaposed to the second animal mentioned in verse 29. This juxtaposition teaches that just as a firstborn son is redeemed when he is thirty days old (Numbers 18:16), so too a sheep is given to the priest only when it is thirty days old.
״מְלֵאָתְךָ וְדִמְעֲךָ לֹא תְאַחֵר״ – ״כֵּן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְשֹׁרְךָ״.
The verses also state: “You shall not delay the fullness of your harvest, and of the outflow of your presses
אֵיפּוּךְ אֲנָא! מִסְתַּבְּרָא: דְּמִקְדַּם לְמִקְדַּם, דִּמְאַחַר – לְדִמְאַחַר. אַדְּרַבָּה: דִּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ – לְדִסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ!
The Gemara challenges: If these verses are the source, one can reverse the cases and derive that a firstborn ox must be given to the priest after thirty days, and a firstborn sheep after fifty days. The Gemara explains: It stands to reason that the time period that is alluded to earlier in the first verse corresponds to the animal that is mentioned earlier in the second verse, while the time period that is alluded to later in the first verse corresponds to the animal that is mentioned later in the second verse. The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, it stands to reason that the time period that is alluded to closer to the mention of an animal should correspond to the animal, i.e., oxen, that is closest to it.
TOSAFOT
מלאתך ודמעך לא תאחר כן תעשה לשורך דהיינו נ' ימים מיום הבאת העומר בפסח שגמר זמן בישול התבואה עד העצרת שמביאין שתי הלחם להתיר חדש במקדש וא"ת האי ביום חמשים הוא ולא הוי כעין בכור בניך וצאנך תתן לי דלאחר שלשים:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אָמַר קְרָא: ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״ – הוֹסִיף לְךָ הַכָּתוּב עֲשִׂיָּיה אַחֶרֶת בְּשׁוֹרְךָ.
Rather, Rava says that the halakha of both a firstborn sheep and a firstborn ox are juxtaposed with the halakha of a firstborn child, which teaches that both require at least thirty days. But since the verse states: “So you shall do with your oxen” (Exodus 22:29), the verse adds an extra act of doing for you in the case of your oxen. In other words, the verse requires that the owner take care of an ox for additional time before giving it to the priest.
וְאֵימָא: שִׁיתִּין! לֹא מְסָרְךָ הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לַחֲכָמִים.
The Gemara challenges: But if so, one can say that the owner must care for the ox an additional thirty days, making a total of sixty days. From where is the total of fifty days derived? The Gemara answers: The interpretation of the verse with regard to the exact amount of time was given only to the Sages, and they determined that the owner must take care of his ox for fifty days.
תַּנְיָא נַמִי הָכִי: ״בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ תִּתֶּן לִי״ – ״כֵּן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְצֹאנֶךָ״. יָכוֹל אַף לְשׁוֹרְךָ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״ – הוֹסִיף לְךָ הַכָּתוּב עֲשִׂיָּיה אַחֶרֶת בְּשׁוֹרְךָ. לֹא מְסָרְךָ הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לַחֲכָמִים,
This is also taught in a baraita : “You shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest, and of the outflow of your presses; you shall give to Me your firstborn sons. So you shall do with your oxen, and with your sheep; seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me” (Exodus 22:28–29). One might have thought that this time period, i.e., thirty days, applies also to your oxen. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall do.” The verse adds an extra act of doing for you in the case of your oxen, and the interpretation of the verse was given only to the Sages.
מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: עַד כַּמָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּיבִין לְהִטַּפֵּל בַּבְּכוֹר? בִּבְהֵמָה דַּקָּה – שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, בְּגַסָּה – חֲמִשִּׁים יוֹם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בְּדַקָּה – שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁטִּפּוּלָהּ מְרוּבֶּה. תָּנָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשִּׁינֶּיהָ דַּקּוֹת.
From here the Sages stated: Until when must an Israelite tend to and raise a firstborn animal before handing it to the priest? With regard to a small animal, e.g., a sheep or goat, it is thirty days, and with regard to a large animal, e.g., cattle, it is fifty days. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a small animal, it is three months, because its tending is extensive, i.e., a great deal of work and effort are required in order to raise it before it can be given to a priest. A tanna taught that so much effort is required to raise a sheep because its teeth are small and it cannot eat most foods.
״אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַכֹּהֵן בְּתוֹךְ הַזְּמַן ‘תְּנֵהוּ לִי׳ – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִתֵּן לוֹ״. מַאי טַעֲמָא? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּכֹהֵן הַמְסַיֵּיעַ בְּבֵית הַגְּרָנוֹת.
§ The mishna teaches: If the priest said to the owner within that period: Give it to me, that owner may not give it to him. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Rav Sheshet says: Because such a priest appears like a priest who assists at the threshing floor so that he can be given teruma . Since this arrangement benefits the owner of the firstborn, as he is spared the effort of taking care of the animal throughout this period, it is as though this priest has paid for the right to receive the firstborn, which is prohibited.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם וְהָעֲנִיִּים, הַמְסַיְּיעִים בְּבֵית הָרוֹעִים וּבְבֵית הַגְּרָנוֹת וּבְבֵית הַמִּטְבָּחַיִם – אֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהֶם תְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר בִּשְׂכָרָן, וְאִם עוֹשִׂין כֵּן – חִילְּלוּ. וַעֲלֵיהֶן הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״שִׁחַתֶּם בְּרִית הַלֵּוִי״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״וְאֶת קָדְשֵׁי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תְחַלְּלוּ וְלֹא תָמוּתוּ״.
The Sages taught in a baraita : With regard to the priests, the Levites,
מַאי ״וְאוֹמֵר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא: מִיתָה לָא – תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְאֶת קָדְשֵׁי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תְחַלְּלוּ וְלֹא תָמוּתוּ״.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Gemara cites the second verse introduced with the phrase: And another verse states? The Gemara answers: And if you would say that the first verse indicates merely that teruma and tithe become desecrated, but one who does this is not punished by death,
וּבִקְּשׁוּ חֲכָמִים לְקוֹנְסָן וְלִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישִׁין עֲלֵיהֶן תְּרוּמָה מִשָׁלֵם. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא קְנָסוּם – דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאַפְרוּשֵׁי מִן הַפְּטוּר עַל הַחִיּוּב.
The baraita continues: And the Sages wished to penalize those who gave teruma or tithe to the priests, Levites, or poor people who helped them, and to require them to separate in their place complete teruma , so that the owners of the produce would not benefit from their improper actions. And for what reason did the Sages not penalize them? Perhaps they would mistakenly think that the produce has not yet been tithed at all, and they would come to separate teruma and tithes from it when it is actually exempt produce, as by Torah law it has already had its tithes removed. They might then separate teruma and tithes from it on behalf of produce to which the obligation of separating tithes still applies, i.e., regular untithed produce.
TOSAFOT
וכי תימא מיתה לא תלמוד לומר וכו' לאו דוקא דלא חשיב לה בפרק אלו הן הנשרפין (סנהדרין פג.) בהדי אלו שבמיתה אלא קרוב הוא [לעון] מיתה:
וּבְכוּלָּן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן
The baraita adds: And in all of these cases, although it is prohibited to give the teruma and tithe to a priest or Levite as his wages, nevertheless there is
TOSAFOT
דלמא אתי לאפרושי מן הפטור על החיוב כו' בכמה מקומות אמרינן תרומה ויחזור ויתרום ולא גזרינן התם כיון שהתרומה ראשונה לכהן מידע ידע דשניה דרבנן ואפילו נתן הראשונה כבר לכהן קודם שיאמר לו חכם לחזור ולתרום מ"מ מדאין הכהן מחזיר לו את הראשונה מידע ידע דשניה דרבנן היא אבל כאן סבור הוא שנתן לכהן בתורת שכר סיועו ומעכבה כהן ובכמה מקומות צריך לחלק בדברים כי ההיא דפסחים בריש מקום שנהגו (פסחים דף נא.) גבי הנהו דמפרשו חלתא מארוזא דאמרינן דאי רובא לאו אורז אכלי ניכלה זר באנפייהו דלמא אתו לאפרושי מן הפטור על החיוב ובפ"ק דיומא (דף י.) גבי סוכת החג בחג חייבת [בעירוב] ובמזוזה ובמעשר דקאמר התם דמדאורייתא קאמר דאי מדרבנן דלמא אתא לאפרושי מן הפטור על החיוב ובדמאי הלוקח מן עובד כוכבים למ"ד יש קנין חייבו חכמים ולא חשו לכך: