Bekhorot 26b (כו:) — the Talmud in English

Since

the principal purpose of it is not to effect atonement,

there is concern lest

he keep it.

Or perhaps: Since an olah also effects atonement for a positive mitzva, [since an olah provides atonement for a transgressed positive mitzva,]

he will not keep it,

and the hair that remains is permitted.

Come and hear

that we do not issue a decree with regard to an olah, lest one keep it, from what we learned in the beraita cited above:

One who pulls wool from an unblemished firstborn, even though a blemish has appeared in it, if he slaughtered it, the wool is forbidden;

with regard to a blemished firstborn from which someone pulled wool and which subsequently died, Akavya ben Mahalalel permits it, while the Sages prohibit it.

And the Gemara initially proposes to explain:

The reason it is prohibited when one pulls it

intentionally from an unblemished firstborn is that it is forbidden even though he slaughtered it;

but if it was pulled off

it is permitted even when it came from an unblemished firstborn. And we are not concerned lest he keep it, for with regard to a sacrifice that he must offer, we are not concerned that he might keep it.

And all the more so an

unblemished

olah will not be kept,

since it also provides atonement.

And we reject this:

The same law applies: even if it fell off on its own, it is also forbidden

in the case of an unblemished animal, and even according to Akavya.

And the reason it teaches “

one who pulls”

is to demonstrate the force of Akavya’s ruling: that in the case of a blemished animal, even when one pulls it off, it is permitted

as explained in the beraita.

And we raise an objection:

But did we not

learn “

that which fell”

with regard to

a blemished animal, that Akavya permits it? How, then, did we learn in the beraita that Akavya permits even wool pulled from a blemished animal!?

And we answer:

The tanna

in our Mishna

taught “

that which fell”

in order to demonstrate the force of the Sages,

who prohibit it even when it fell on its own—

The tanna

in the

beraita

taught “

one who pulls” intentionally

in order to demonstrate Akavya’s force,

who permits it even when one pulls it off.

We learned in the Mishna:

The matted wool

of a firstborn that is visible from the shearing is permitted, but that which is not visible from the shearing is forbidden:

And the Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances

of wool

that is not visible from the shearing,

but was initially like wool already pulled off?

Rabbi Elazar said that Reish Lakish said: Any wool whose base is turned toward its head,

meaning that it is folded at its middle, and its base, like its head, is visible from the outside.

Rav Natan bar Oshaya said: Any wool that does not

become flattened together with the shearing

that was performed now, but appears to rise above it.

And we explain:

And why did Reish Lakish not state his opinion in accordance with Rav Natan bar Oshaya,

who adopts the more stringent position?

Rabbi Ilaa said: Reish Lakish holds: Because it is impossible to shear without some loose strands.

That is, there is no shearing in which part of the wool does not rise above the rest; and if you say that in such a case it is forbidden, there would be no permitted shearing at all.

We shall return to you, chapter “One Who Purchases an Animal.”

Mishna:

To what extent

is the period during which

Israelites are obligated to tend to a firstborn animal,

to care for it and raise it until they give it to a kohen?

For a small animal,

they are obligated to tend to it

for thirty days, and for a

large

animal, fifty days.

Rabbi Yosei says: For a

small

animal

one must tend to it for

three months,

because the care required for a small animal is greater. Since its teeth are delicate, it cannot live without its mother.

And from when does he count this period for it? If it is unblemished, he counts for it from the eighth day, since only from that day is it fit to be sacrificed.

And if

the kohen said to him during this period

for which the owner is responsible to tend to it:

“Give it to me,

and I will tend to it,”

he may not give it to him,

because this makes him appear like a kohen who assists in the threshing floor, laboring on behalf of an Israelite so that the Israelite will give him priestly gifts.

And if

the firstborn

has a defect, and

the kohen said

“Give it to me

before the period has elapsed, so

that I can eat it,”

it is permitted

for the Israelite to give it to him. Since it is fit to be eaten immediately, this does not make him appear like a kohen who assists in the threshing floor.

And when

the

Temple

was standing and the firstborn animal was sacrificed on the altar,

if the

firstborn was

unblemished

and he said to him,

“Give

it to me [and I will not tend to it, but]

and I will sacrifice it,”

it is permitted

to give it to him.

The

mitzva of the firstborn

is that it

be eaten year by year,

that is, within a year of its birth.

Whether

it is

unblemished, whether

it is

blemished,

as it is stated:

“Before the Lord your God shall you eat it year by year.”

And if

it develops a defect within its year, he may keep it for the entire twelve months.

If it develops a defect

after its year, he may keep it only for thirty days.

Gemara:

And we raise the following question:

From where are these matters

that the Israelite is obligated to tend to a firstborn small animal for thirty days and to a large animal for fifty days, derived?

Rav Kahana said: For the verse states, “You shall not delay your fullness and your flow; the firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me.” “So shall you do with your ox, with your sheep.”

And this is how we expound it:

“The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me” —

that you shall redeem him after thirty days.

“So shall you do with your sheep” —

you shall give it after thirty days.

“You shall not delay your fullness and your flow.” “Your fullness” refers to the first fruits; “you shall not delay” them, but shall bring them to the chosen House.

And just as the first fruits are brought after fifty days, the interval between Passover and Shavuot,

“so shall you do with your ox,”

that you shall give it to the kohen after fifty days.

And we challenge this:

“Should I reverse it?”

Let us expound: “The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me” — “so shall you do with your ox,” and say that the period for tending it is thirty days, like the redemption of a firstborn son. “Your fullness and your flow you shall not delay” — “so shall you do with your sheep,” and the period for tending a sheep will be fifty days.

And we answer:

It is logical

that we expound it as

the earlier one corresponding to the earlier one.

The matter written earlier in the first verse — the bringing of first fruits — teaches about the matter written earlier in the second verse — the ox.

The later one

in the first verse — the redemption of the firstborn son — teaches

about the later one — the sheep, which is written second in the second verse.

And we challenge this:

On the contrary!

It should have been expounded

as the one adjacent to the one adjacent to it.

The end of the first verse — “the firstborn of your sons” — should teach about the adjacent phrase, the first phrase of the second verse — “so shall you do with your ox.”

Rather, Rava said:

We expound it from here: “So shall you

do

with your ox.” This verse is superfluous, since it should have written only: “The firstborn of your son, your ox, and your sheep you shall give to Me.” It comes to teach:

The verse added another act of doing for you with regard to your ox.

And we challenge this:

Perhaps

we require

sixty days?

And the verse came to add an act of thirty days to the act of redeeming the firstborn son!?

And we answer:

The verse did not give you

a measure for the act.

Rather, it entrusted it to the Sages,

and they said: fifty days.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rava’s opinion: “The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me

— so shall you do with your sheep.”

This teaches that one tends to a small animal for thirty days and then gives it to the kohen.

One might have thought that also with regard to your ox

the period is thirty days, and not fifty.

The verse states: “You shall do.” The verse added another act of doing for you with regard to your ox. And the verse did not give you its measure, but entrusted it to the Sages.

From here they said: To what extent are Israelites obligated to tend to a firstborn animal? For a small animal, thirty days; for a large animal, fifty days.

Rabbi Yosei says: For a small animal

one tends to it for

three months.

Then one gives it to the kohen. And the reason that he raises it for such a long period is:

because the care required for it

by a small animal

is greater.

What does “because the care required for it is greater” mean?

The tanna said: Because its teeth are delicate,

and it cannot eat grass. If it is not with its mother, it will die.

We learned in the Mishna:

If the kohen said to him during the period, “Give it to me,” he may not give it to him:

And we raise the question:

What is the reason

he may not give it to him?

Rav Sheshet said: Because he appears like a kohen who assists in the threshing floor.

He relieves the Israelite of the burden of tending to it during the period in which it must remain with him, and in exchange the Israelite gives him the firstborn. This is like a kohen who assists the owner of the field by threshing and winnowing the grain in the threshing floor so that the owner will give him the teruma, and this is prohibited, as follows.

The Sages taught: Priests, Levites, and the poor who assist in the threshing floor

in order to receive terumot and tithes,

and in the slaughterhouses

in order to receive the foreleg, cheeks, and stomach —

They may not be given teruma or tithe as their wages. And if they do so,

laboring for the homeowner so that he will give them the gifts,

they have profaned

the sacred offerings of the Lord!

And concerning them the verse states: “You have corrupted the covenant of Levi.” And it states: “You shall not profane the sacred things of the Children of Israel, and you shall not die.”

What is the purpose of “And it states”?

Lest you say

that the profanation of terumot and tithes

does not incur death

as a punishment —

Come and hear: “You shall not profane the sacred things of the Children of Israel, and you shall not die.”

And the Sages sought to penalize

the homeowners who allow them to assist in the threshing floor,

and

the penalty would have been

to require them to separate teruma

and tithe

from their own produce

a second time.

And why did they not penalize them,

the Sages?

They were concerned

lest one come to separate from exempt produce for obligated produce.

Perhaps, when he comes to tithe fully untithed produce [which is obligated in terumot and tithes by Torah law], he will tithe it from this produce, which is obligated in separation only by rabbinic ordinance, since by Torah law it has already been tithed. Therefore the Sages did not penalize them by requiring them to tithe again.

And why did the Sages not penalize them

?

Because they were concerned

that one might come to separate from exempt produce for obligated produce.

Perhaps, when he comes to tithe completely untithed produce [which is obligated in teruma and tithes by Torah law], he would use some of this produce to discharge the obligation, although this produce requires separation only by rabbinic law and is considered tithed by Torah law. Therefore, the Sages did not penalize them by requiring a second separation.