Bekhorot 26b — the Talmud in English

Since ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

the principal purpose does not come for atonement—

there is concern lest perhaps

he keep it.

Or perhaps: since a burnt-offering also atones for a positive commandment [since a burnt-offering provides atonement for a positive commandment that he violated]

he will not keep it,

and the excess wool is permitted.

Come and hear

that we do not decree with regard to a burnt-offering, lest he keep it, from what we learned in the beraita brought above:

One who pulls wool from an unblemished firstborn, even though a blemish developed in it: if he slaughtered it, it is forbidden,

a blemished firstborn from which he pulled wool and afterward it died—Akavya ben Mahalalel permits, and the Sages prohibit.

And the Gemara is inclined to explain:

The reason is that he pulled

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

but if it was pulled out, it is permitted

even from an unblemished firstborn, and we are not concerned lest perhaps he keep it, for with regard to an offering that he needs to offer, we are not concerned lest he keep it,

and all the more so a burnt-offering

unblemished

that he will not keep it,

since it also provides atonement.

And we reject this:

The same law applies: even if it was pulled out, it too is forbidden

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

and the reason that it teaches “

one who pulls”

is to make known the strength of Akavya, that in the case of a blemished animal even when one pulls it, it is also permitted,

as explained in the beraita.

And we raise an objection:

But we learned “

that fell out”

from a blemished animal

we learned

that Akavya permits; and how did we learn in the beraita that even when one pulls it from a blemished animal, Akavya permits!?

And we answer:

The tanna

in our Mishna

taught “that fell out”

in order

to make known the strength of the Sages,

who prohibit even when it fell out by itself—

The tanna

in the beraita

taught “one who pulls”

intentionally in order

to make known

the strength of Akavya,

who permits even when one pulls it.

We learned in the Mishna:

matted wool

that on a firstborn, which 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 appears as though it had been detached from the outset?

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

meaning, it is doubled in its middle, and its root, like its head, is visible from the outside.

Rav Natan bar Oshaya said: Any wool that does not

become pressed down with the shearing

that he has now sheared, but appears to rise upward.

And we explain:

And what is the reason that Reish Lakish did not say as Rav Natan bar Oshaya,

who was more stringent?

Rabbi Ila said: Reish Lakish holds: Because it is impossible for shearing to be without loose strands.

That is, there is no shearing in which part of it does not rise upward; and if you say that in such a case it is forbidden, there is no permitted shearing.

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

Mishna:

Until how much

time

are Israelites obligated to attend to the firstborn,

and to engage with it and raise it until they give it to a kohen?

For a small animal,

they are obligated to attend to it

until thirty days, and for a

animal

of a large species, fifty days.

Rabbi Yosei says: For a

animal

of a small species

one must attend to it

for three months,

because the attending to a small animal is greater. Since its teeth are fine, it cannot live without its mother.

And from when does he count for it? If it is unblemished, he counts for it from the eighth day, since only from that day is it fit for sacrifice.

And if

the kohen said to him during this period

during which the owner is required to attend to it:

Give it to me,

and I will attend to it,

he must not give it to him,

because it appears like a kohen who assists in the threshing floor, who labors for an Israelite so that he will give him priestly gifts.

And if

the firstborn

is blemished, and

the kohen said

Give it to me

before the time, so that

I may eat it—

it is permitted

for an Israelite to give it to him, since it is fit to eat immediately; this is not like a kohen who assists in the threshing floor.

And at the time

when the

Temple

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

if there was

a firstborn

unblemished

and he said to him,

Give

it to me [and I will not attend to it, but

I will sacrifice it,

it is permitted

to give it to him.

The mitzva of

the firstborn

is that it should be

eaten year by year,

that is, within a year of its birth.

Whether

it is

unblemished, or whether

it is

blemished,

as it is said:

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

And if

a blemish developed in it within its year, he may keep it for all twelve months.

If a blemish developed in it

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

Gemara:

And we raise it as a question:

From where are these words

that the Israelite is obligated to attend to the firstborn of a small animal for thirty days and to a large animal for fifty days?

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

“Your fullness and your tears you shall not delay; 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 after thirty days you shall redeem him.

“So shall you do with your sheep”—

you shall give it after thirty days.

“You shall not delay your fullness and your tears.” “Your fullness”—these are the first fruits; “you shall not delay”—but you shall bring them to the chosen House.

“so shall you do with your ox,”

And just as the first fruits come after fifty days, 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:

Perhaps I should reverse it?

And expound: “The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me”—so shall you do with your ox. And we shall say that its time for attending is thirty days, like the redemption of the son. “Your fullness and your tears you shall not delay”—so shall you do with your sheep. And the time for attending to the sheep will be fifty days.

And we answer:

It is logical

that we expound

the earlier with the earlier.

That which is written earlier in the first verse—the bringing of the first fruits—teaches about that which is written earlier in the second verse—the ox.

That which is later

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

about that which is later

about the sheep, which is written second in the second verse.

And we challenge this:

On the contrary!

It should have been expounded

the adjacent with the adjacent.

The end of the first verse—“the firstborn of your sons”—should teach about that adjacent to it, which is the first thing in the second verse—“so shall you do with your ox.”

Rather, Rava said:

From here we expound it: “So

shall you do

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

The verse added another doing for you with your ox.

And we challenge this:

And say

that we require

sixty days?

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

And we answer:

The verse did not transmit to you

[as in, “it transmitted to you”]

the

measure of the act,

but to the Sages

it transmitted it, and they said fifty days.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rava: “The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me—

so shall you do with your sheep.”

This teaches that for a small animal he attends to it for thirty days, and afterward gives it to the kohen.

One might

also say that for your ox it is likewise thirty days, and not fifty?

The teaching says: “You shall do.” The verse added another doing for you with your ox. And the verse did not transmit it to you, but to the Sages.

From here they said: Until how much are Israelites obligated to attend to the firstborn? For a small animal, thirty days; for a large animal, fifty days.

Rabbi Yosei says: For a small animal

he attends to it

for three months.

And afterward he gives it to the kohen. And the reason that he raises it for such a long time is:

because its attending

of the small animal is

greater.

What does “because its attending is greater” mean?

The tanna taught: Because its teeth are fine,

and it cannot eat grass. And 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 must not give it to him:

And we raise it as a question:

What is the reason

that he must not give it to him?

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

He prevents the Israelite from the labor of attending to it during the time that it must be with him, and in exchange he gives him the firstborn. And this is like a kohen who assists the owner of the field in threshing and winnowing the grain in the threshing floor so that they will give him the teruma, and this is forbidden, as follows.

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

in order to receive terumot and tithes,

and in the slaughterhouses

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

They do not give them teruma and tithe as their wages. And if they do so,

that they labor for the householder so that he will give them gifts—

they have profaned

the holy things of the Lord!

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

What is the purpose of “and it says”?

Lest you say

that the profanation of terumot and tithes

does not

incur death—

Come and hear: “And you shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, and you shall not die.”

And the Sages sought to penalize them.

The householders who allow them to assist in the threshing floor,

and

the penalty was—

that they would separate teruma on their account

and tithe

from their own

a second time.

And why did they not penalize them,

the Sages?

For they were concerned

lest he come to separate from that which is exempt for that which is obligated.

Perhaps when he comes to tithe completely untithed produce [which is obligated in terumot and tithes by Torah law], he will tithe upon it from these fruits, which are obligated in separation only by rabbinic law, for by Torah law they have already been tithed. Therefore the Sages did not penalize them to tithe again.