Bekhorot 53b — the Talmud in English

And we answer: If it is because of the possibility of a mishap, behold,

it is possible

to make another enactment,

as Rav Yehuda [said]. For Rav Yehuda said: It is permitted for a person to inflict a blemish upon a firstborn animal before it emerges into the air of the world

and when it emerges into the air of the world, he shall give it to a koen. Since it is possible to use this enactment, it is not appropriate to sell the ear of the animals designated for the tithe and thereby remove the firstborn animals even from the sanctity belonging to the koen, just as we found above [3b], where Rav Mari did so because of the possibility of a mishap, and all his livestock died. And we object: But

here too, it is possible that he should inflict a blemish upon it

from the outset [for even with the animal tithe he can inflict a blemish upon it before it becomes sanctified as tithe], and then there is no concern about a mishap; so why do they not tithe at all in the present time?!

And we answer:

From the outset

—before he brings them out through the opening—

does he know which one will emerge? [Does he know which one is the one that will emerge as the tenth, that you say he should inflict a blemish upon it before bringing them out through the opening]?!

— разве он знает, какое именно животное выйдет десятым, чтобы ты говорил ему причинить ему увечье еще до того, как он выпустит их через отверстие?!

And if you would say:

In any event, it is possible to use this enactment,

that he bring it out

—that animal upon which he inflicted a blemish—

at the beginning of the tenth

[he should bring out that animal upon which he inflicted a blemish as the tenth]. This too is impossible, because:

“He shall not inspect between good and bad”

[between an unblemished animal and one with a blemish]

the Merciful One said,

and this means that he may not cause the tenth to be unblemished or to have a blemish.

And if you would say: It is possible that he should inflict a blemish upon all his herd

[he can inflict a blemish upon his entire herd]. This too is not appropriate to do, because:

The Temple will speedily be rebuilt, and we require animals for sacrifice, but there will be none

[when the Temple is rebuilt, animals will be needed for sacrifice, but they will not be available, because everyone will have inflicted a blemish upon his herds].

And we object: If because of this they do not inflict a blemish in order to be exempt from the animal tithe, then

here too, with regard to firstborn animals

how can you say that they should inflict a blemish upon them? Behold,

the Temple will speedily be rebuilt, and we require animals for sacrifice, but there will be none!

And we answer: This is not difficult, for a blemish is inflicted only upon firstborn animals, and nevertheless

it is possible to use ordinary animals

[animals that are not firstborns] and sacrifice them upon the altar.

And we object: But

here too—

when he inflicts a blemish in order to be exempt from the animal tithe—there are still

possible

animals

purchased

that are exempt from the animal tithe, as is explained in the Mishna below, on 55b, and they can be sacrificed upon the altar?!

And we answer: In any event, to do this throughout his entire herd in order to be exempt from the animal tithe is not appropriate, since

once he inflicts a blemish upon all his herd

[he has indeed inflicted a blemish upon his entire herd]

and

also

blemishes that disqualify sacrificial animals are common, for even a blemish such as a film over the eye also disqualifies them

[blemishes are common even in the other animals, for even a minor blemish such as a film over the eye disqualifies it from being sacrificed]; therefore, it turns out that

animals are not common

for sacrifice, and therefore the Sages said that one should not tithe.

We learned in the Mishna: The animal tithe applies

to unconsecrated animals

but not to consecrated animals?!

And we object: But

with regard to consecrated animals, it is obvious

that he is not obligated to tithe them, since

they are not his

[they do not belong to him], and he does not need to tithe them?!

And we answer: Our Mishna was necessary to teach us that the animal tithe does not apply even

to lesser sanctified animals, and according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said: Lesser sanctified animals are the property of their owners,

and if so, they do belong to him; nevertheless, they are exempt because of their sanctity, as it explains and proceeds.

For it was taught:

It is written [Leviticus 5:21] in the section of the oath of deposit: “When a person sins

and commits treachery against the Lord

and denies his fellow,” and therefore Scripture said “against the Lord” and “his fellow”:

to include lesser sanctified animals,

so that if he denied having them and swore, he is liable under the law of an oath of deposit, because

they are

sanctified to the Lord and also

the property of their owners,

unlike the most sacred animals, where the depositary is not liable under the law of an oath of deposit if he denied having them and swore,

the words of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili—

And according to his view, had the Mishna not taught us their exemption from the animal tithe,

it might enter your mind to say

that

they should be tithed,

since they are the property of their owners; and

it teaches us

our Mishna that they are not obligated in the animal tithe.

The Gemara asks:

And say that this too is so,

that lesser sanctified animals, according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, since they are the property of their owners, are indeed obligated in the animal tithe; and what difference does it make that they already possess sanctity?!

And we answer: “The tenth

shall be holy,”

the Merciful One said

with regard to the animal tithe,

and not one that is already sanctified

with the sanctity of consecrated animals before it emerges as the tenth.

The Gemara now raises an objection in the opposite direction: On the contrary, it is reasonable to exempt lesser sanctified animals from the animal tithe, and no verse is even needed for this:

The reason is that the Merciful One wrote

“shall be holy”;

otherwise, it might enter your mind to say that the sanctity of the animal tithe would take effect upon them,

of the lesser sanctified animals?!

But

now, when a more stringent sanctity does not take effect upon a lesser sanctity,

as it explains and proceeds,

a lesser sanctity,

such as the sanctity of the animal tithe,

upon a lesser sanctity

such as lesser sanctified animals,

is it necessary to state this?!

For it is obvious that the sanctity of the animal tithe does not take effect; why, then, do we need a verse to exempt it?!

And we explain:

What is it

—the more stringent sanctity upon the lesser sanctity that does not take effect?

For we learned

in tractate Temura:

Both sacrificial sanctified animals and those sanctified for the maintenance of the Temple, one may not change them from one sanctity to another,

for the sanctity of sacrificial animals does not take effect upon an animal sanctified for the maintenance of the Temple, even though it is more stringent; nor does the less stringent sanctity of an animal sanctified for the maintenance of the Temple take effect upon sacrificial sanctified animals, so that he would be obligated to give their monetary value for the maintenance of the Temple—

But one may consecrate it,

the sacrificial sanctified animal, for the maintenance of the Temple,

a consecration of enhancement.

That is, the beneficial privilege that the owner of the offering possesses through its sacrificial sanctity, he may give to the maintenance of the Temple. His beneficial privilege is that he can take a sela from another Israelite, on the condition that he give it to his daughter’s son, a koen, to sacrifice it, so that the meat and hide will be his; and “enhancement” means that he assesses that benefit at its monetary value and gives it to the treasurer.

And

also

one may impose a herem upon it

in the manner of a herem belonging to the kohanim, and he gives that beneficial privilege to a koen—

It is thus explained that even a more stringent sanctity, such as sacrificial sanctity, does not take effect upon the sanctity of the maintenance of the Temple. All the more so, a lesser sanctity should not take effect upon a lesser sanctity, and lesser sanctified animals do not become sanctified with the sanctity of the animal tithe?!

And we answer:

Lest you say: There

—when he comes to impose sacrificial sanctity upon an animal sanctified for the maintenance of the Temple—

every animal

is

not destined for an ola,

and it follows that the sanctity for the maintenance of the Temple takes effect upon it, and afterward he cannot consecrate it for the altar—

But here,

with regard to the sanctity of the animal tithe,

every animal

is

destined for the animal tithe;

therefore, it is possible that

even though he consecrated it

the prohibition of the animal tithe does not depart from it.

That is, the status of animal tithe does not depart from the animal—and

what practical difference is there

whether the sanctity of the animal tithe takes effect upon the peace offerings or not? Since it is sanctified in any event, what does the additional sanctity, which is not more stringent than the preceding one, add?—

to establish upon it

“It shall not be redeemed”

and

“It shall not be sold,”

[to prohibit it through redemption and sale]—

This teaches us: "

It shall be sacred" and not one that is already sacred.

We learned in the Mishna:

And it applies to cattle and sheep, and one is not tithed from one of these upon the other, with sheep and goats

and one is tithed from one of these upon the other. For it could have been reasoned: If the new and the old, which are not kilayim with one another, are not tithed from one of these upon the other, sheep and goats, which are kilayim with one another—need it not follow that they should not be tithed from one of these upon the other? The verse says: "[And every tithe of cattle] and sheep"—it implies: all sheep are one:

And we raise an objection:

Then the new and the old should be tithed from one of these upon the other, by a kal va-chomer:

And if sheep and goats, which are kilayim with one another,

nevertheless

are tithed from one of these upon the other, the new and the old, which are not kilayim with one another—need it not follow that they should be tithed

from one of these upon the other!?

The verse says [Deuteronomy 14:22]: "

You shall surely tithe

all the produce of your seed, that which comes forth in the field, year by year,"

the verse speaks of two tithes: one is the animal tithe and one is the tithe of grain,

and it juxtaposes the animal tithe to the tithe of grain,

in order to teach:

Just as the tithe of grain, from the new

which brought a third of its growth after the first of Tishrei]

upon the old

which brought a third of its growth before the first of Tishrei]

is not

tithed, for this is what the Torah said: "that which comes forth in the field, year by year,"

so too, the animal tithe from the new upon the old is not

tithed.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

also

sheep and goats as well

should not be tithed from one of these upon the other, for

let us say:

It juxtaposes the animal tithe to the tithe of grain: just as the tithe of grain, from one species upon that which is not its species, is not

as we shall derive below, further on this page],

so too, the animal tithe, from one species upon that which is not its species, is not!?

And we answer: Behold,

the Merciful One included "

and

sheep,"

as is explained in the Mishna, that from here we derive that all sheep are one.

And we raise an objection:

If so, the new and the old as well

should be tithed from one of these upon the other, for all sheep are one!?

And we answer:

Here,

on the other hand,

it is written "

You shall surely tithe,"

and the tithes were juxtaposed to one another.

And we raise an objection:

What did you see

to exclude from the juxtaposition the new upon the old, and to include through "and sheep" one species upon that which is not its species? One may say the opposite!?

Rava said: The verse says

in that same verse of the juxtaposition, "You shall surely tithe all the tithe of your grain that comes forth in the field

year by year";

we have learned:

I linked it to year, and not to another matter.

We learned there:

One may not designate teruma

and likewise one may not tithe]

from one species upon that which is not its species, and if he designated teruma, his teruma is not teruma.

The Gemara asks:

From where are these words?

He said

[he explained]

Rabbi Ami said in the name of Rabbi Yannai, and some say: Rabbi Ami said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

Because it is written in the section concerning the gifts of the kohanim [Numbers 18:12]: "

Every fat of oil"

oil], "

and every fat of wine"

wine]

and grain,

the first of them that they give to the Lord, to you I have given them,"

the Torah said: Give the fat

the choicest portion for teruma]

to this one, and the fat to that one.

That is, do not separate from one of these upon the other; rather, from each species you shall raise its fat from it.