Bekhorot 56a (נו.) — the Talmud in English

Just as your sons are not included when acquired or received as a gift

, since acquisition and a gift cannot apply to them, but rather they were born to him,

so too your ox

—with regard to animal tithe—

is not included when acquired or received as a gift.

And we challenge this:

But

the

this

verse

with regard to the firstborn

of an animal is that

it is written there, and not with regard to animal tithe!?

And we answer:

And we resolve this:

the verse says: “

You shall perform

for your ox,” which indicates that its sanctity comes about through an act.

And if it is not needed with regard to the firstborn, for

the firstborn

is not subject to an act

it is not subject to an act],

as it is sacred from the womb

automatically and there is no need to consecrate it,

apply it to animal tithe

, to teach with regard to it that an animal acquired or received as a gift is not subject to the obligation.

And we challenge this: How do we know that, through the principle “if it is not needed,” the verse comes to teach with regard to animal tithe?

Perhaps apply it to a sin-offering and a guilt-offering

, to teach that one who is obligated to bring a sin-offering or a guilt-offering may not bring one acquired or received as a gift, but only an animal born in his herd!?

And we resolve this: The meaning of the verse is: “Your ox and your flock”

analogous to your son [“

your sons”].

Just as your son does not come because of a sin, so too your flock and your ox do not come because of a sin

, and necessarily the verse comes to teach with regard to animal tithe.

And we continue to challenge this:

Perhaps apply it to a burnt-offering and peace-offerings

brought voluntarily, and not to animal tithe!?

And we resolve this: We require

an analogy to your son: Just as your son

is

obligatory

for him

and is not

a matter of a vow or a voluntary offering, so too your flock and your ox

are referring to something that does not come through a vow or a voluntary offering, namely, animal tithe.

And we continue to challenge this:

Perhaps apply it to the burnt-offering of appearance

[which one is obligated to bring when appearing in the Temple on the pilgrimage festivals], since one is obligated to bring it and it is not a vow or a voluntary offering!?

And we resolve this: We require

an analogy to your son: Just as your son has no fixed time

for his sanctity, since he is sacred from the moment he is born,

so too your ox and your flock have no fixed time

, whereas can you say this with regard to the burnt-offering of appearance, which is something whose time is fixed, namely, on the pilgrimage festivals?

We challenge this further:

If so, just as your son is not acquired at all

, since acquisition cannot apply to him,

so too your ox and your flock should not be acquired at all

, and

why then

[why]

did Rabbi Asi say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

If one acquired ten fetuses in their mothers’ wombs

before they were fit for animal tithe,

all of them enter the pen to be tithed!?

He said

—

Rava

explained: Since

the verse says: “

You shall perform

for your ox,” and this indicates:

At the time of the act

[at the time fit for the act, namely, to be tithed],

the verse excluded

them. But fetuses in their mothers’ wombs, which are not yet fit to enter the pen to be tithed, are not exempted by acquisition or a gift.

The substance of the matter: Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one acquired ten fetuses in their mothers’ wombs, all of them enter the pen to be tithed.

And we challenge this:

But did we not learn

in our Mishna:

An acquired animal or one given to him as a gift is exempt from animal tithe!?

Rabbi Elazar said:

I

saw Rabbi Yoḥanan in a dream

, and I understood that

I would say an excellent matter

[I saw Rabbi Yoḥanan in a dream, and I understood that today I would say an excellent matter]. And this is what I say:

The verse says: “

You shall perform

for your ox,” teaching that

the verse excluded at the time of the act.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim raised an objection to Rabbi Elazar,

from the following beraita:

An acquired animal takes effect upon one lacking the requisite time. That is, even if one acquired the animal before the eighth day, when it is lacking the requisite time for offering, the acquisition exempts it. It is thus evident that acquisition exempts even before the animal is fit to be tithed, since an animal lacking the requisite time is not fit to be tithed, as is explained in the Mishna below, 57a!?

That is, even if he acquired the animal before the eighth day, when it lacks the time required for offering, the acquisition exempts it. It is thus explained that an acquired animal exempts even before it is fit to be tithed, for one lacking time is not fit to be tithed, as is explained in the Mishna below, 57a!?

He said to him

, Rabbi Elazar to Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim:

This—

this beraita—

is not a Mishna.

That is, it is not authoritative.

And if you should find grounds to say that it is a Mishna, it is the view of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: An animal lacking the requisite time

—although it is not fit to be offered—

enters the pen to be tithed

,

, and it is like a firstborn: Just as a firstborn is sacred before its time

when it becomes fit to be offered, since it is sacred from the womb,

and is offered after its time

[after the eighth day],

so too an animal lacking the requisite time

—that is, animal tithe:

it is sacred before its time and is offered after its time.

It is explained below, 57a, that although the payment given to a prostitute is forbidden for offering, it does enter the pen to be tithed. Its law is as follows: If it emerges as the tenth animal, it is eaten by its owners because of its blemish; if another animal emerges as the tenth, the tenth animal is offered.

A tanna taught

a beraita

before Rav: What is the payment given to a prostitute

concerning which they said

that

it

enters the pen to be tithed?

Any animal that they gave her

as her payment,

and then acquired it again

[whether he or another person]

from her

, as the Gemara explains below: If the payment is still in the prostitute’s possession, there is no question of its entering the pen to be tithed.

And one who raised the difficulty asked:

But it was disqualified as an acquired animal

. That is, although because it is designated as payment given to a prostitute it enters the pen to be tithed, nevertheless it should be exempt because it was acquired!? And the Gemara

says:

That questioner was

unaware of what Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one acquired ten fetuses in their mothers’ wombs, all of them enter the pen to be tithed. Therefore, one can find a case of such payment acquired by the adulterer that is not exempt because it was acquired: namely, payment consisting of a fetus, which the adulterer acquired again while it was still a fetus.

Accordingly, one can find a case of payment acquired by the man who committed the transgression that is not exempt because it was acquired: the payment was a fetus, and the man acquired it again while it was still a fetus.