Bekhorot 53a (נג.) — the Talmud in English

1. The Torah states in the passage concerning Animal Tithe [Leviticus 27:32]: “

And every tithe of cattle and flock, all that passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to the Lord.”

That is, when a person comes to tithe his animals, he brings them out through the opening of the pen one after another, and when the tenth animal passes, he strikes it with a rod containing red paint, called sikra, so that it will be recognizable as the tithe. He does the same with the calves and lambs born throughout the year.

The sanctity of the tithe is for it to be offered as a sacrifice upon the altar, by presenting its blood and burning its sacrificial portions. The meat, however, is eaten by the owners.

2. Animal Tithe does not render the animals “tevel,” unlike the tithe of grain, which renders the produce tevel.

3. The early authorities disagreed concerning the mitzva of Animal Tithe: Is it a positive obligation, or is it merely optional?

4. Whether an unblemished animal or one with a blemish passes under the rod and is tithed, sanctity takes effect upon it. For this is what the Torah says in the passage concerning the tithe: “He shall not inspect whether it is good or bad,” that is, whether it is unblemished or blemished. The verse does not mean that it is to be offered upon the altar while blemished; rather, only that it is to be eaten under the laws of the tithe, and it is forbidden to shear it or work with it.

Rashi

in the Pentateuch.

5. Animal Tithe, whether unblemished or blemished, belongs to its owners and is not given to a kohen, for we do not find in Scripture that it is given to a kohen, as explained by Rashi on this page, s.v. “With its blemish,” and by Rambam, Bekhorot 6:4.

6. It is written: “The tenth shall be holy to the Lord. He shall not inspect whether it is good or bad.” That is, one may not cause specifically an unblemished animal or specifically a blemished animal to emerge as the tenth. 7. Animal Tithe cannot be redeemed and cannot be sold, and one who does so transgresses a negative commandment. This law is derived from the continuation of the verse, “It shall not be redeemed,” and from the verse concerning consecrated property: “It shall not be sold and it shall not be redeemed.” See the views on this matter in the Gemara above, 32a.

Mishna:

Animal Tithe applies

in

the Land of

Israel and outside the Land of Israel.

Whether the Temple is standing or not standing.

For unconsecrated animals, but not for consecrated animals,

and the Gemara will explain the novelty of this.

And Animal Tithe applies

to

cattle and flock.

And one may not tithe from one category upon the other,

but he takes a tithe from cattle separately and from flock separately.

It applies

to sheep and goats

[which are both flock],

and one may tithe from one upon the other.

It applies

to the new

[those born after the first of Elul]

and to the old

[those born before the first of Elul, since the first of Elul is the New Year for Animal Tithe],

but one may not tithe from one upon the other.

We derive from Scripture that sheep and goats may be tithed from one upon the other, as will be explained later in the Mishna. We needed to derive it from Scripture because

it could have been reasoned

that they may not be tithed from one upon the other, for:

If the new and the old, which are not kilayim with one another,

nevertheless

may not be tithed from one upon the other—

Sheep and goats, which are kilayim with one another—should it not follow that they may not be tithed from one upon the other?

The Torah therefore states, “

And every tithe of cattle

and flock”;

this indicates: all flock

is one

category. The Gemara will explain how this is derived, and the amoraim disagree about it on folio 54b.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Animal Tithe applies in the Land of Israel and outside the Land of Israel.

The Gemara analyzes this:

Shall we say

that

the Mishna,

which obligates Animal Tithe even outside the Land of Israel, is

not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva?

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Akiva says: Could it be that a person brings Animal Tithe from outside the Land of Israel and offers it?

The Torah therefore states [Deuteronomy 12:6]: “

“And you shall bring them there

And you shall bring there

[to the place that the Lord will choose]

your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, and your tithes,”

and Scripture used the plural “your tithes” to tell you:

Scripture is speaking of two tithes, one being Animal Tithe and the other being the tithe of grain

[Second Tithe]. Thus, Animal Tithe is compared to the tithe of grain, and we learn:

From the place where you bring the tithe of grain, you bring Animal Tithe. And from a place where you do not bring the tithe of grain,

that is, outside the Land of Israel, where the tithe of grain does not apply, since it is one of the mitzvot dependent upon the Land, which apply only in the Land,

you do not bring Animal Tithe.

If so, our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva?

The Gemara answers:

Even if you say

that our Mishna is the view of

Rabbi Akiva,

it may be explained as follows:

Here—

the statement of Rabbi Akiva—

refers to offering,

meaning that Animal Tithe from outside the Land of Israel may not be offered upon the altar.

Here—in our Mishna, which obligates Animal Tithe outside the Land of Israel—this refers only

the obligation concerns

to becoming consecrated,

but it may not be offered upon the altar. The Gemara proceeds to explain the practical consequence of Animal Tithe becoming consecrated outside the Land of Israel.

This too is precise, that Rabbi Akiva excluded only offering,

as

the verse he cites

from the words

“And you shall bring there”,

which refers to offering, but not to the fundamental act of consecration.

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from this

that, according to this inference, Rabbi Akiva exempted Animal Tithe outside the Land of Israel only from offering.

The Gemara asks:

Since it cannot be offered,

even according to Rabbi Akiva,

why does it become consecrated

[why does it become holy]?

The Gemara explains:

To be eaten

to be eaten

only

with its blemish

[once a blemish develops in it]

by the owners.

We learned in the Mishna: Animal Tithe applies

whether the Temple is standing or not standing.

The Gemara challenges this:

If so,

that the mitzva of Animal Tithe is not dependent upon the existence of the Temple,

even in the present era

[literally, at this time]

as well

one should be obligated in Animal Tithe!?

The Gemara answers:

As Rav Huna

said below concerning a different matter.

For Rav Huna said: It is a decree on account of an orphan

[an orphaned animal, whose mother died or was slaughtered and then it was born], which is exempt from the tithe, as explained below in the Mishna on 57a, and perhaps one will include it in the count of the ten lambs at the time of tithing.

The Gemara raises an objection to this answer:

If so,

if you are concerned about an orphan, then

from the outset also not

should they have separated Animal Tithe because of this decree. Why, then, is Animal Tithe not practiced only in the present era!?

Rather,

necessarily, they did not take this into consideration, because

it is possible to make a public declaration

by the court that an orphan should not be included in the count for animal tithe. If so,

here,

in the present time,

as well,

there is

the possibility of making a public declaration;

so why should they not tithe them!?

Rather, Rabba said: It is due to the concern of a mishap,

lest people mistakenly come to shear it or work with it, or slaughter it without a blemish, since one must wait until it develops a blemish; therefore, they exempted it entirely from animal tithe.

And from where do you say that we take into consideration the possibility of a mishap?

And from that

which was taught in a beraita: One may not consecrate property, take vows of valuation, or declare property herem

in the present time

[for even herem becomes consecrated like consecrated property, as it is stated [Leviticus 27:28]: “Every herem is most holy to the Lord”]

and this is due to the concern of a mishap.

because of the concern for mishap.

But if

one nevertheless

consecrated property, took a vow of valuation, or declared it herem:

If it is

an animal,

it is:

it shall be rendered unfit

[the Gemara proceeds to explain how], so that people should not come to a mishap through it.

And if they are

produce

or

garments and utensils,

they are:

they shall rot.

And if they are

money or metal utensils,

they are,

he shall convey

them

to the Salt Sea,

and all this is due to the concern of a mishap.

The beraita explains what we learned: “An animal—it shall be rendered unfit”:

And what constitutes rendering it unfit?

He locks the door before it, and it dies on its own

from starvation.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

since we take into consideration the possibility of a mishap,

a firstborn animal should also not become consecrated

because of the concern of a mishap!?

The Gemara expresses astonishment at the question: Is it the case that

the firstborn animal depends on us

[that the matter depends on our consecration, so that you ask: Should the firstborn animal not become consecrated!?] For

from the womb

it

becomes consecrated

automatically!?

Therefore, the Gemara explains the question:

This is what it is saying:

Let the Sages institute

that the owners acquire their ears

[the ears of the firstborn animals]

for gentiles,

so that

they should not become consecrated from the outset

[so that the firstborn animal should not become consecrated initially], since ownership in partnership with a gentile exempts the animal from the sanctity of the firstborn!?