Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Bechorot

Bechorot 27 for kids: A Year of Its Own

בכורות כ״ז

🐑 This daf asks who may pay to choose a priest to receive teruma. It also explores special rules for teruma grown outside the Land of Israel and how to count a firstborn animal’s year.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Bechorot 27a in Daf QuestOpen Bechorot 27b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Bechorot 27

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Bechorot 27 in simple English

Rashi on Bechorot 27a, in English Tab translation (20)
  1. Benefit of discretion — a small payment. If a priest gives a sela so that the gifts will be given to another priest who is his relative, it is forbidden: since the gifts could be given to the payer himself, it looks like a priest being paid to assist.
  2. And why did the tanna not mention priestly gifts? — This is the correct reading, not “the first tanna.” The baraita says that the owner has the benefit of discretion with all the gifts, then gives an example involving teruma. Why does it not also mention a butcher who set aside priestly gifts or a shepherd who had firstborn animals?
  3. He could say to you: Teruma — the owner may receive a payment for choosing its recipient because teruma has inherent sanctity. Everyone knows that it cannot become ordinary food. The priest whose maternal grandfather paid on his behalf will therefore not mistakenly think that the payment removed its sanctity and treat it as ordinary food.
  4. But these — the priestly gifts and the firstborn animal.
  5. They have sanctity that inheres in their value — a priest may sell meat from a firstborn animal, or the foreleg, jaws, and maw, to an Israelite. The buyer need not eat them roasted and with mustard, as a priest does. A priest might therefore mistakenly reason that, since they can be sold—
  6. Their sanctity can be redeemed with four zuz — the four zuz paid by his maternal grandfather. He might then treat them as ordinary food rather than eat them roasted and with mustard, as required in the chapter on the foreleg, jaws, and maw (Ḥullin 132b). That is why the tanna did not mention them. By “all of them,” he means all the teruma and tithes carry a benefit of discretion.
  7. Teruma from outside Eretz Yisrael — its requirement is rabbinic, so it may be given to a priest who assists at the threshing floor.
  8. To his servant — who was a priest.
  9. It is nullified in a majority — so that an Israelite may eat it; one hundred parts of ordinary produce are not required. Once it has been mixed into a majority of ordinary produce, an Israelite may eat it, as may a priest while ritually impure.
  10. Rabba — he was a priest descended from the house of Eli.
  11. Teruma wine — from outside Eretz Yisrael.
  12. He may go on eating — the untithed produce, provided he leaves enough to separate teruma at the end.
  13. Impurity that comes from his body — such as that of a man with a discharge, a woman with a discharge, a menstruating woman, or a man who has had a seminal emission. It is permitted to someone impure through contact with a corpse.
  14. We have no problem with touching it — even though touching it renders it impure, one is not required to protect it from impurity.
  15. Therefore — since touching it is permitted, a menstruating woman may separate ḥalla, and a priest may eat it.
  16. A minor priest — rather than an adult, who may have become impure through a seminal emission. If an adult has immersed after such an emission, he is like a minor in this respect. Another explanation is that a minor is specified because he has never had a seminal emission and so has never had impurity come from his body. This is the explanation given in the She’iltot of Rav Aḥai.
  17. With the tip of a skewer — after designating the ḥalla, she takes care, as far as possible, not to touch it.
  18. An adult priest — a priest who has reached the age of religious obligation.
  19. To relieve himself — to use the latrine.
  20. May he immerse and eat teruma from outside Eretz Yisrael? — without waiting until after sunset.
Tosafot on Bechorot 27a, in English Tab translation (7)
  1. And he might treat them like ordinary food — Priestly gifts must be eaten with dignity, as kings eat meat: roasted and with mustard. This applies even to the foreleg, jaw, and maw. We find no such requirement for eating teruma, perhaps because this manner of eating applies only to meat.
  2. Teruma from outside Eretz Yisrael is nullified by a majority — This permits an impure priest to eat it, as Rabba did. It does not permit a non-priest to eat it, contrary to the commentary’s explanation. The discussion in Menaḥot indicates that an Israelite’s teruma from outside Eretz Yisrael still requires one hundred parts of ordinary produce to nullify it for a non-priest.
  3. Rabba would nullify it in a majority — The reading is Rabba, who was a priest descended from Eli’s family, not Rava, who was not a priest, as is evident from the passage in Ḥullin where Rava told his attendant to acquire the priestly gifts for him.
  4. He may eat and afterward separate — This suggests that the produce set aside as teruma need not be next to the produce it exempts. One could, however, understand that some of the original pile remains when he separates it, satisfying that requirement. The commentary instead explains that he eats while leaving only enough for teruma, which he separates at the end.
  5. Therefore a menstruating woman may separate ḥalla, and a minor priest may eat it — Why specify a minor? An adult priest could immerse and become pure from a seminal emission. Immersion is not an undue burden: priests immersed for teruma even in Babylonia. Rabbi Yitzḥak therefore suggests that this ḥalla has no required minimum amount. It is a small piece, suitable to give a minor priest; the reference to lifting it on the tip of a skewer also suggests its small size. Teruma from grain, wine, or oil is less suitable for a minor, who might waste it. Moreover, some teruma has a fixed amount, such as the teruma separated from the tithe.
  6. On the tip of a skewer, and throws it into the oven — The commentary says she uses the tip to avoid touching the ḥalla after designating it. But touching it is explicitly permitted. Rather, the implement lets her place it well inside the fire. It appears to be a baker’s peel, used to remove bread from an oven. Since some foods become liable for ḥalla only after baking, she can take the ḥalla as she removes them and throw it into the fire on the tip of the peel.
  7. She separates another piece as ḥalla — Here a second piece is required only when no minor priest is available. In regions near Eretz Yisrael, by contrast, two portions are always separated: one burned because their ḥalla resembles the impure ḥalla of Eretz Yisrael, which even a wholly pure priest may not eat, and another given to a priest so the practice of ḥalla is not forgotten. Distant Babylonia was not subject to that restriction; its ḥalla could be eaten by a priest whose impurity did not arise from his body, and it could be nullified in a majority. Here even an adult priest with a bodily impurity may eat the second portion, unlike the second portion in those nearer regions. Some corrected readings say this second portion is not formally designated ḥalla and apparently does not make a mixture forbidden. Even where two portions of ḥalla were required, two portions of teruma were not: ḥalla concerns everyone who makes dough, while teruma chiefly concerns landowners who process grain.
Rashi on Bechorot 27b, in English Tab translation (10)
  1. But do we have sprinkling? — Nowadays there is no sprinkling of the red heifer’s ashes; just as sprinkling is not required, neither is waiting until sunset.
  2. Should we not show consideration for the elder? — This is a question: Should we not show respect for Rav Amram, who is absent? It is better not to issue a ruling until he returns.
  3. He may immerse and eat — He need not wait until sunset.
  4. But the law does not follow him — The Gemara adds this in response to his ruling.
  5. We count by the animal’s own year — If a firstborn is born in Nisan, it may be kept until the following Nisan. We do not say that its year ends when the calendar year ends in Tishrei.
  6. This is the year of a firstborn — The animal’s own year extends into the next calendar year, which begins in Tishrei.
  7. One day in this year — If it is slaughtered on the last day of its year, it may be eaten that day and the next, in the following year: two days in all.
  8. And how does the school of Rav know? — How do they know that we count by the animal’s own year?
  9. From sacrificial animals — From other offerings that must be a year old, of which Scripture says, ‘a lamb in its first year.’
  10. ‘And their flesh shall be yours, like the breast of waving’ — This verse concerns the firstborn and appears in the section beginning with Korah. A thanksgiving offering may be eaten only for a day and a night; the portions set aside from it—the breast and thigh—have the same time limit.
Tosafot on Bechorot 27b, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. But do we have sprinkling? — It is implausible that priests who became impure through contact with a corpse would travel to the Land of Israel for sprinkling, return, and then eat the priestly portion of dough from outside the Land. The Sages were lenient about impurity associated with lands outside Israel, but immersion is normally required for other forms of Torah-level impurity. They would not have instituted a priestly portion that a priest could eat only after traveling to Israel for sprinkling. Nor could priests avoid every form of corpse impurity: a metal implement can acquire impurity like a corpse even through being under the same roof, yet priests are not required to avoid that form of impurity. Thus, it appears that they ate this portion without sprinkling or immersion. This also clarifies the mishna in Ḥalla. When it says that someone who immersed that day may eat the priestly portion, it means someone who had a seminal emission: he may eat before nightfall. It cannot mean someone impure through a corpse, for where would he obtain sprinkling? Rabbi Yosei says that even someone who had a seminal emission need not immerse. This explains why the mishna subsequently excludes people with other forms of bodily impurity but does not mention him. The Jerusalem Talmud applies that exclusion specifically to Rabbi Yosei’s ruling; its reading ‘Rabbi Yehuda’ appears to be a scribal error. To explain the mishna more fully: within the Land of Israel, one portion of dough is separated. In the border region from Keziv to the river and Amnon, two are separated: one is burned because the produce is subject to Torah-level separation but cannot reliably be kept pure, and one is given to a priest so the practice of giving the portion is not forgotten. The burned portion has a prescribed amount because its obligation is from the Torah; the priest’s portion has none because its obligation is rabbinic. Beyond Amnon, two portions are also separated, but both obligations are rabbinic: the burned portion has no prescribed amount, while the priest’s portion does. The mishna then states who may eat that portion and that it may be eaten at a table with a non-priest and given to any priest. The Talmud quotes this mishna in shortened form. It similarly shortens or adapts quotations from tractates dealing with purity and agriculture. For example, its quotations of the mishna in Orla must be understood in their respective contexts: one concerns combining prohibited foods to reach the amount punishable by lashes, while the other concerns their combined effect on a mixture’s taste and prohibition. ‘Given to any priest’ includes a priest who is not careful about ritual purity, since the Sages did not impose on this portion the usual concern that he might eat it while impure. But it does not mean that he should be preferred over a priest learned and observant in Torah when the latter needs the gift. Rather, it permits giving it to the former when no such priest is available, or when such a priest does not need it and the former is poor. As noted, someone who immersed after a seminal emission may eat the priest’s portion before nightfall. The same appears true of the portion burned in Babylonia and of our portion: although someone whose impurity issues from his body may not eat it before immersion, he need not wait until nightfall. This is not conclusive, however, since its rules may differ for someone impure through a creeping animal. Halakhot Gedolot says that a menstruating woman may separate dough and that a minor priest, or someone who immersed after a seminal emission, may eat its portion. It also says that in the Land of Israel only one portion is separated and burned. But now that it is burned because sprinkling is unavailable throughout the Land, a second portion should apparently be separated, as in the border region, so that the practice of giving a portion to a priest is not forgotten.
  2. But the halakha is not in accordance with him — This rejects his requirement of immersion: even immersion is unnecessary. Rashi’s wording does not appear to read it this way.
  3. Year by year: which year enters another? — The phrase is interpreted according to its context. Elsewhere, ‘year by year’ teaches that a year’s wages may become payable in the following year, or that tithes from one year may not be taken for another. The discussion here must concern a year’s passing without the pilgrimage festivals; the festivals alone can trigger the prohibition against delaying an offering. But is the phrase not needed to teach that a firstborn offering does not become invalid when one year passes into the next? Ben Azzai also derives from another verse that delaying a vow makes one liable for delay, not for offering an unacceptable sacrifice, and requires separate verses for a firstborn and other offerings. The answer is that the teaching here can instead be derived by analogy to tithes: just as a tithe does not become invalid when one year passes into another, neither does a firstborn. The sages here can accept that analogy, leaving ‘year by year’ to teach that the firstborn’s year is counted from its birth.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Bekhorot, Bechoros, Bekhoroth 27.