Bekhorot 57a — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Yohanan proceeded according to his reasoning:

Rabbi Yohanan follows his method, which he stated elsewhere: “There is no retroactive designation”:

For Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Brothers who divided [an inheritance] are purchasers,

for each one took his fellow’s share of the inheritance,

and they return [the land] to one another in the Jubilee,

like an ordinary purchase; and we do not say that there is retroactive designation, to say that this was the share destined for him from the outset.

And they are necessary,

these two statements:

For if he had taught us

only

here—

concerning animal tithe—for in every manner of division they are exempt from animal tithe because they are considered purchasers, I might have said:

In this case

specifically

Rabbi Yohanan said

that they are like purchasers, not because there is no retroactive designation, but even though there is retroactive designation, they are nevertheless exempt, because for an animal to be subject to animal tithe we require it to be

like your son,

and

just as your son is clearly designated for you, so too your ox and your sheep must be clearly designated for you.

В «Хазон Иш» [его слова приведены в примечаниях выше, на странице 56б, в примечании 12], рассуждая об амораях, которые, по мнению того, кто считает, что существует заранее установленное определение, различали способы раздела, написал: обычно мы не проводим такого различия [между одним видом и двумя видами], однако здесь, поскольку мы освобождаем приобретённое животное на основании требования, чтобы оно было подобно твоему сыну, следовало бы также исключить наследство. Но представляется разумным считать наследника единым целым с наследодателем. Поэтому имеется основание различать случай, когда каждый получил козлят в обмен на козлят, и случай, когда один получил козлят в обмен на козлов: поскольку при разделе учитывалась стоимость, это не подобно «твоему сыну», даже если существует заранее установленное определение и получатель имеет статус наследника. В любом случае, если он получил наследство посредством оценки — предмет в обмен на предмет, — это исключается, поскольку не подобно «твоему сыну» , как сказали в Гемаре, на странице 57а, даже если братья разделили козлят в обмен на козлят и даже если обычно мы считаем, что существует заранее установленное определение, здесь они освобождены от десятины, поскольку требуется: «подобно твоему сыну — с самого начала определённому для тебя». [См. также сказанное о его словах в примечании выше, на первой стороне страницы].

But

with regard to the division of

a field

and concerning the Jubilee, it is stated:

It is a sale concerning which the Merciful One said that it returns in the Jubilee; inheritance and a gift do not,

and since we say that there is retroactive designation, it is not a sale but an inheritance.

And if he had taught us concerning a field,

I might have said that only there do we say that there is no retroactive designation, since it is

stringent

to say that they return it in the Jubilee, because it was not clear to Rabbi Yohanan that there is no retroactive designation, and because of the doubt he ruled stringently that they should return it in the Jubilee—

Alternatively,

Rabbi Yohanan did not say that they should return [the land] to one another in the Jubilee because there is no retroactive designation; rather, they should return it so that the field will be

as it was initially,

that is, just as initially it was undivided and belonged to one person, so in the Jubilee it will return to one person.

But here,

with regard to animal tithe, when, if we say that there is no retroactive designation, we are lenient and exempt them from animal tithe,

say no

we should not say so—

Therefore

it is necessary

to state both sayings.

He raises an objection

against the one who says, “There is retroactive designation”:

And likewise, partners who divided: one took ten

kids,

and one took

corresponding to them

nine

kids

and a dog,

and it turned out that one of the kids taken by the owner of the ten was equal in price to the dog that he gave to his partner. Therefore, all the kids

corresponding to the dog,

that is, all the kids taken by the owner of the ten, are

forbidden

to be offered on the altar because of “the price of a dog,” for it is an abomination of the Lord to offer it upon the altar.

And those kids

with the dog,

that is, the kids taken by the owner of the nine together with the dog, are

permitted.

And now we ask:

And if you say “

there is retroactive designation,”

let one of them be designated as corresponding to the dog, and let him take it, and these others should be permitted —

[let him remove one from the ten and designate it, saying that this is the one received as the price of the dog, and the rest should become permitted]!?

He said

he answered:

Rav Ashi: If they were all equal to one another, it would indeed be so

[if the price of every kid and the price of the dog were equal, it would indeed be possible to say, “There is retroactive designation,” and to designate one kid as the price of the dog]. However,

with what are we dealing here:

With a case

where they were not all equal to one another

[their prices were not all equal], and the kids of the owner of the ten were worth more than the kids of the owner of the nine,

and this dog was worth one and a fraction

[the value of the dog was equal to the value of one kid and a fraction of one of the kids of the owner of the ten].

And this fraction extends and comes through all of them

[and this fraction is found in all the kids corresponding to it], and it is no longer possible to take one kid and say: This is the price of the dog.

Mishna:

All enter the pen to be tithed, except for mixed species,

when a mature goat mated with a ewe and she gave birth,

an animal with a permanent condition, and one delivered by caesarean section

[which did not emerge in the ordinary manner through the womb],

and one not yet of the proper age

[before the eighth day from its birth],

and an orphan

from its mother; and the reason for all of these will be explained in the Gemara.

And who is an orphan? Any animal whose mother died or was slaughtered, and afterward she gave birth.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even if its mother was slaughtered, and the skin

[the mother’s hide]

remains

at the time her offspring is born,

this is not an orphan.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: All enter the pen to be tithed, except for mixed species, an animal with a permanent condition, one delivered by caesarean section, one not yet of the proper age, and an orphan:

The Gemara asks:

From where are these matters?

And it explains:

For the Sages taught:

It is written concerning other consecrated animals: “An ox or a sheep or a goat, when it is born, shall be seven days under its mother, and from the eighth day onward it will be acceptable for an offering of fire to the Lord”:

And we expound: From that which Scripture said

“an ox or a sheep”

and not “an ox and a sheep,” we learn:

excluding mixed species,

which is two species together and is not fit for an offering of fire to the Lord.

And from that which Scripture said:

“or a goat”

and not “a sheep and a goat,” we learn:

excluding a creature of a different appearance,

whose mother is a ewe but which resembles a goat. “

When it is born”

Когда родится»

excluding one delivered by caesarean section. “

And it shall be seven days

under its mother, and from the eighth day onward it will be acceptable”:

excluding one not yet of the proper age. “

Under its mother”

excluding an orphan,

which is not under its mother, because she has already died.

Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Broka says: It is stated here

in animal tithe, “Whatever passes

under the staff,”

and it is stated there

in the verse mentioned above

“under its mother,”

to teach us:

just as there, it excludes all these names,

as was explained,

so here,

in animal tithe,

it excludes all these names.

And likewise we learn from animal tithe concerning the other sacrificial offerings by this gzera shava:

just as here,

in animal tithe,

it excludes an animal with a tereifa,

so there,

with regard to the other sacrificial offerings,

it excludes an animal with a tereifa.

The Gemara asks: This statement that we learned in our Mishna,

“Everything

enters the pen to be tithed,”

what does it come to include?

What does the expression “everything” come to include?

And we explain:

it comes to include that which the Sages taught:

the one who had intercourse

with an animal,

and the one with whom intercourse was had

by a human,

and the one designated

who was set aside to be offered for idolatry,

and the one worshipped

to which he performed worship, such as pouring wine between its horns,

and the payment to a prostitute

of a prostitute,

and the exchange

of a dog,

and a tumtum and an androgynos,

all of which are disqualified for an offering, but nevertheless

all of them enter the pen to be tithed.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: A tumtum and an androgynos do not enter the pen to be tithed.

And we challenge:

And the Tanna of our Mishna—

the tanna of our Mishna, who disqualified from entering the pen all those mentioned in the Mishna, and included those mentioned in the beraita as entering to be tithed—what does he hold?

If he derives “

under under”

from sacrificial offerings,

then

these

mentioned in the beraita

also should not

enter the pen to be tithed;

and if he does not derive “under under,” then

these

mentioned in the Mishna

from where does he know

that they do not enter the pen to be tithed!? And we answer:

In fact, he derives

the “under under” of the tanna of our Mishna, and therefore he disqualified all those mentioned in the Mishna,

but these—

those mentioned in the beraita—

the Torah included them

[the Torah included them, as the Gemara will explain: the Torah compared the one who had intercourse, the one with whom intercourse was had, and the payment to a prostitute, and the one designated and the one worshipped, to an animal with a blemish; and just as an animal with a blemish is obligated in animal tithe and is eaten by its owners, so too these, although they are unfit to be offered, are nevertheless obligated in animal tithe and are eaten by their owners with their blemish].

For it is written

with regard to offerings with blemishes [Leviticus 22]: “

For their corruption is in them; there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted for you.”

And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

Every place in which corruption is stated—

as, for example, here, where it is written “their corruption”—

it refers only to a matter of sexual transgression and idolatry.

And from where?

A matter of sexual transgression, for

it

is written

concerning the generation of the Flood [Genesis 6]: “

For all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.”

Idolatry, for

it

is written

[Deuteronomy 4]: “

Lest you corrupt yourselves and make for yourselves a graven image, the likeness of any figure, the form of male or female”—

and

if so, Scripture compared these to animals with blemishes, to tell you:

everything

for which a blemish disqualifies,

also

a matter of sexual transgression

[the Gemara will explain what a matter of sexual transgression is in an animal]

and idolatry

[it will explain it further]

disqualify it; and anything for which a blemish does not disqualify, a matter of sexual transgression and idolatry do not disqualify it—

And this animal tithe,

of animals,

since a blemish does not disqualify it,

but it is tithed and eaten by its owners,

for it is written

[Leviticus 27] with regard to animal tithe: “

He shall not inspect whether it is good or bad”

[whether it is unblemished or has a blemish]

“and he shall not exchange it,”

also

a matter of sexual transgression and idolatry likewise do not disqualify it.

And if so, we have learned concerning all those mentioned in the beraita that they are obligated in animal tithe, for:

The one who had intercourse and the one with whom intercourse was had are a matter of sexual transgression,

and they were compared to an animal with a blemish, to make them obligated in tithe.

The one designated and the one worshipped are idolatry,

and they were compared to an animal with a blemish, to make them obligated in tithe.

And the payment to a prostitute

also

is a matter of sexual transgression,

and it was compared to an animal with a blemish.

And the exchange

of a dog is obligated in animal tithe, because

it was compared to the payment to a prostitute,

and the payment to a prostitute is indeed obligated in tithe through the comparison to an animal with a blemish.

A tumtum and an androgynos

also are obligated in animal tithe, because

he holds

the tanna of our Mishna:

it is a doubt,

and not a creature in itself; and if so, it is either male or female, and in either case it is obligated in tithe.

Thus we have learned concerning all those mentioned in the beraita that they are obligated in animal tithe.

The Gemara adds to explain the reason of Rabbi Shimon in the beraita, who exempts a tumtum and an androgynos from animal tithe:

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says

in the name of Rabbi Shimon: A tumtum and an androgynos do not enter the pen to be tithed, because

he holds that they are not

a doubt,

but are creatures in themselves—

And if so, they are not obligated in animal tithe, for

the Torah excluded them with regard to sacrificial offerings

because it is required that there be

a definite male

and a definite female,

as it is stated: “an unblemished male” and “an unblemished female,”

but not a tumtum and an androgynos,

and

tithe likewise derives “

under under”

from sacrificial offerings.

The Sages taught:

Everything enters the pen to be tithed, except for mixed species and an animal with a tereifa, the words of

Rabbi Eliezer bar Yehuda of Kefar Bartota, who said

this law

in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua.

Rabbi Akiva said: I heard from him

[from Rabbi Yehoshua]:

also an animal born by caesarean section, one before its proper time, and an orphan

do not enter the pen to be tithed, as is likewise explained in our Mishna.

And

we challenge the

Tanna Kamma: If he derives “

under under”

from sacrificial offerings,

then even

these—

an animal born by caesarean section, one before its proper time, and an orphan—

also should not

be tithed, since they are disqualified with regard to sacrificial offerings—

And if he does not derive

the gzera shava of “under under,” then the following difficulty arises:

Granted, an animal with a tereifa

which, according to the Tanna Kamma, does not enter the pen to be tithed, is entirely understandable, because

“Whatever passes under the staff”

is written,

and we learned:

excluding an animal with a tereifa, which does not pass.

But mixed species—

which are not tithed—

from where does he know

this, the Tanna Kamma? For although it is disqualified with regard to sacrificial offerings, the Tanna Kamma does not derive “under under”!?

And we answer:

In fact, the Tanna Kamma derives

“under under,” and as for what is difficult for you—if so, an animal born by caesarean section, one before its proper time, and an orphan should also not enter the pen to be tithed—he says to you: