Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Bechorot

Bechorot 34 for kids: Who Gets the Penalty?

בכורות ל״ד

🐑 This daf asks when teruma of uncertain purity must be protected. It also asks what happens when someone makes a blemish on a firstborn animal.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Bechorot 34a in Daf QuestOpen Bechorot 34b 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 34

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Bechorot 34 in simple English

Rashi on Bechorot 34a, in English Tab translation (10)
  1. Safeguard it — because the verse says, “the charge of My terumot.”
  2. Once he spread his garment over her — the master designated the Hebrew maidservant as his wife and married her. Her father may no longer sell her, even if the master divorces her, because a man may not sell his daughter into servitude after she has been married. As explained in Kiddushin 18b, Rabbi Eliezer follows the written form: “bevigdo bah” is spelled without a yod and can be read as an expression of betrayal. It is like other words written without a yod but read with an a vowel, such as “when he heard” (Genesis 39:15).
  3. Once he betrayed her — her father betrayed her by selling her into servitude, so he may not sell her again: a man may not sell his daughter into servitude after she has already been in servitude. He may, however, sell her after she has been married. Kiddushin explains that Rabbi Akiva follows the pronounced reading, “bevigdo.” Some mistakenly reverse the views of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva in Kiddushin. That cannot be right, for then the question raised here in Bekhorot would make no sense.
  4. Rabbi Shimon — in the mishna he permits letting blood even if it causes a blemish, but does not say that the animal may be slaughtered because of that blemish.
  5. The halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda — as stated in Shabbat 22a: he holds that an unintentional prohibited result is forbidden.
  6. The halakha follows Rabbi Shimon — so why would Shmuel need to teach us that again here?
  7. Without the intermediaries — without citing Rav Ḥiyya and Rav Ḥanin.
  8. In the baraita — there Rabbi Shimon says that the animal may even be slaughtered because of that blemish. Since the person intended to save its life, not to blemish it so it could be eaten, we do not penalize him.
  9. Mishna: One who slits — one who notches the ear. The mishna is speaking of a priest.
  10. Gemara: Does Rabbi Eliezer penalize him forever? — Does the animal remain forbidden forever?
Tosafot on Bechorot 34a, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. One blemish and any blemish — Even the sages who do not generally derive a law from the word “any” may do so here, because the context calls for it, as explained there.
  2. Both definitely pure teruma and teruma of uncertain status — But Shabbat also derives from this verse that impure teruma belongs to the priest and may be used as fuel under his cooking pot. How can one verse include three kinds of teruma? The words “I have given you the charge of My terumot” serve different purposes: “given you” includes impure teruma, permitting its use; “charge” includes teruma of uncertain status, which must be safeguarded; and “My terumot” includes pure teruma.
  3. And Rabbi Yehoshua reads it as “My teruma” — If Rabbi Yehoshua does not read this verse as referring to two kinds of teruma, how does he know that impure teruma may be used for benefit? He derives it from other interpretations in Shabbat, including “You shall not kindle from it” and “for him, but not for his light,” which implies that teruma may be used as fuel.
  4. But a contradiction is raised from “bevigdo bah” — Rashi’s text assigns the reading “once he spread his garment over her” to Rabbi Akiva and “once he dealt deceitfully with her” to Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbenu Tam argues that the attributions should be reversed: most old manuscripts here and in Kiddushin put the garment reading in Rabbi Eliezer’s name and the deceit reading in Rabbi Akiva’s. This also names the teacher, Rabbi Eliezer, first. Moreover, the spelling without a yod does not establish the deceit reading, since a word meaning “garment” is ordinarily written without a yod too. On Rabbenu Tam’s reading, the pronunciation favors deceit; if “garment” were intended, a different vowel would be expected here. The spelling without a yod favors “garment,” and the baraita’s repetition of “bevigdo bah” draws attention to that spelling. The Mekhilta’s attribution of the garment reading to Rabbi Akiva is, he suggests, due to an omission by its copyist. Old manuscripts of the later discussion in Kiddushin also name Rabbi Akiva; Rashi’s reading requires changing that name. Although Kiddushin then asks a question based on Rabbi Eliezer’s view, his ruling can be treated as settled law because the other sages there agree with it: a father cannot sell his daughter into servitude after she has been married.
  5. If you mean Rabbi Shimon in the mishna, has Shmuel not already taught that an unintended result is permitted? — This is puzzling: Rabbi Shimon permits making a blemish even deliberately in the case discussed in the baraita, because the animal is already blemished. Rashi’s approach could call the blemish “unintended” here because the person acts to heal the animal, not to blemish it; but, as explained earlier, that approach cannot be maintained. Rather, the mishna and baraita address different disputes. The baraita concerns an animal whose blood disorder already counts as a blemish: without bloodletting it will die, or it will remain afflicted. Rabbi Meir forbids causing another blemish even in such an animal. The Rabbis permit it but forbid slaughter on account of the new blemish, lest people apply that permission where the animal can recover without one. Rabbi Shimon permits even slaughter on account of it. Rabbi Yehuda forbids bloodletting even where it will not cause a blemish, lest concern for the animal lead someone to let blood where it will. The mishna, by contrast, concerns the risk of an unintended blemish during treatment. Its Rabbis require care to avoid that risk; Rabbi Shimon permits the treatment despite it. Its wording, unlike the baraita’s, does not distinguish between places where bloodletting does or does not cause a blemish. And why is the blood disorder not itself grounds for slaughter? Either the Sages barred this lest it be confused with an unblemished animal, or it counts as a temporary, treatable blemish.
  6. Does Rabbi Eliezer impose a penalty forever? But consider one who had a lesion — Several discussions show that forbidding slaughter on a blemish deliberately made in a firstborn animal is a rabbinic penalty. Even under Rava’s rule that a prohibited act has no legal effect, the animal is biblically blemished; likewise, someone who cuts off a leprous lesion is biblically free of that lesion. But the Sifrei says, in Rabbi Eliezer’s name, that one who blemishes a firstborn and eats it violates “You shall not eat any abomination.” The penalty discussed below follows the Rabbis, who interpret that verse differently, as referring to disqualified consecrated animals or to meat cooked with milk. Its prohibition in those cases does not by itself establish a prohibition on slaughtering because of this blemish. One might still ask why Rabbi Eliezer’s restriction is challenged by comparison with cutting off a lesion: perhaps slaughter is biblically forbidden until another blemish appears, whereas removal of the lesion makes the person biblically free of it at once. The answer is that this would not justify penalizing the animal forever, or penalizing a later blemish that involved no wrongdoing when a later lesion is not penalized. Alternatively, the Sifrei’s verse is only a scriptural support for a rabbinic rule.
Rashi on Bechorot 34b, in English Tab translation (26)
  1. And it was excised — He did not intend to excise it.
  2. When another leprous mark appears on him — For now he is impure and has a leprous mark.
  3. He will become pure — He is freed from the impurity of the first mark, and his status follows the new one. If the new mark heals, he is pure of both: this shows that the first mark, had it remained, would also have healed.
  4. Until it spreads over his entire body — That is, the later mark. There is no concern about the first mark, since even if it were still there, he would now be pure, as it is written: “The leprosy covers all the skin of the mark.”
  5. Or until his white mark shrinks — The first mark must have shrunk below the size of a split bean before he excised it. But if it was still large enough to count as a leprous mark when he excised it, he can never become pure; the penalty remains forever.
  6. With his property, he may come to do it — He might think: “I will cause a blemish. If it permits the animal to me, I gain; if not, what have I lost? I would have had to wait for another blemish anyway.” Therefore, he is penalized even if another blemish appears, to deter him from doing it.
  7. With his body, can one say that? — Would he risk cutting off the mark unless the penalty lasted forever? Surely not. He would fear that another mark might never appear, leaving him unable to become pure. Even if one did appear, what would he gain by cutting off the first? He would again have a leprous mark. Better to leave the first one and hope it heals.
  8. Through this blemish — The animal does not become permitted to him until another blemish appears.
  9. Through this excision — Since excising the mark does not make him pure, he remains impure forever. We treat the mark as though it were still there: who can say it would have healed?
  10. Did we learn “he will become pure”? — This would mean that he becomes pure of the first mark as soon as another appears.
  11. Or did we learn “and he will become pure”? — This would mean that after another mark appears and he becomes pure of that later mark, he then becomes pure of the first.
  12. For a bridegroom on whom a mark appeared — The later mark appeared during his wedding celebrations.
  13. What practical difference does it make? — Even if the wording is “he will become pure,” he is still impure because of the later mark until it heals. Either way, impurity applies to him.
  14. He is given time — A priest does not examine the mark. As long as a priest has not seen it and declared him impure, he is not impure, for the Torah makes his status depend on the priest.
  15. His cloak — If marks of garment leprosy appeared on his cloak.
  16. He has become pure of the first — He becomes pure of it as soon as the new mark appears. The new mark does not make him impure, because its examination is delayed for the days of his wedding—or, for anyone, for the pilgrimage Festival. But if the wording is “and he will become pure,” the delay does not help him: he remains impure from the first mark until the later one heals.
  17. And he died — If the person who caused the blemish died, is his son also penalized, so that he may never eat from that firstborn offering?
  18. If you say — In tractate Gittin, one who sells his slave to a gentile is penalized and must redeem him for up to ten times his value. The question there is whether his son is penalized after the seller dies. Even if you conclude that the son is penalized there, that may be because the slave is kept from observing commandments every day.
  19. And if you say — Tractate Moed Katan says that if a man deliberately leaves his vineyard to harvest during the pilgrimage Festival, thinking that the Sages permit harvesting then to prevent a loss, he must let the crop be lost rather than harvest it. The question there is whether, if he dies before the Festival, his son is also forbidden to harvest it then. Even if you conclude that the son is not penalized there, that may be because his father died before the Festival and committed no violation.
  20. But here — The father did commit a violation by blemishing a consecrated animal.
  21. His property — The firstborn offering.
  22. Its thorns were removed — Detached thorns scattered across the field were taken away.
  23. It may be sown after the Sabbatical year — There is no reason to impose a penalty, since no substantial farm work was done during the Sabbatical year.
  24. It was fertilized — By carts carrying loads of manure.
  25. Animals were penned on it — A herd was kept and made to lie on the land for a month or two to fertilize it.
  26. Do not sow — We penalize him because he performed significant agricultural work during the Sabbatical year.
Tosafot on Bechorot 34b, in English Tab translation (7)
  1. Until it spreads over his entire body — All the books also read, “or until his baheret becomes smaller than a split bean,” but that phrase is absent from the Mishnah in Nega’im, as Rashi explains. Rabbi says that if it is included, it means this: After he cut off part of the mark, the mark was the size of a split bean, but some of what remained healed on its own. Even counting the part he cut off, the mark would now be smaller than a split bean.
  2. He is purified from the first mark; for the second, we wait the seven days of wedding celebrations — But does he not need to shave and bring birds, and is he not forbidden marital relations throughout his seven days of counting? This could concern someone whose leprosy was only under quarantine, not confirmed. Alternatively, even if it was confirmed, although cutting off the mark leaves him impure by rabbinic law, he may still shave, bring birds, count his days, and become pure by Torah law. He cannot, however, bring his atonement offerings: while rabbinically impure, he cannot put his hands into the Temple for the rites performed on his thumbs and big toes. The exception mentioned in Pesachim—allowing someone who immersed that day to enter when others may not—was granted only for the Passover offering.
  3. Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: If someone damages a firstborn animal’s ear and then dies, is his son penalized after him? — In Gittin, the question about selling a slave comes first; in Moed Katan, the question about deliberately scheduling work for the intermediate days of a Festival comes first. Each discussion refers conditionally to the other cases, and all three questions are answered from the teaching about a field cleared of thorns. Rabbi says that all three questions were asked together, but the Gemara placed each in its relevant discussion. Some copies of Moed Katan say Rava asked Rav Nahman; most say Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira, as here and in Gittin.
  4. If you say that when someone sells his slave to gentiles and dies, his son is penalized, because each day the slave is kept from observing commandments — The Gemara could still have said that even if the son is not penalized there, he is penalized for blemishing a firstborn animal, since that violates Torah law. Gittin uses that kind of reasoning in its question about selling a slave, and Moed Katan uses it in its question about scheduling work for the intermediate days of a Festival. Gittin could likewise have said that even if the son is not penalized for blemishing a firstborn animal, he is penalized for selling a slave because the slave is kept from observing commandments every day. Moed Katan gives different reasons for the firstborn animal and the slave, but could have given the same reason for both: the father committed a prohibited act. By contrast, merely scheduling work for the Festival did not itself violate a prohibition.
  5. Cleared of thorns — Rashi explains that detached thorns scattered across the field were removed. He is right: if the thorns had been rooted, the field could not be sown, because uprooting them improves the land and violates Torah law. Shabbat teaches that someone who plucks chicory or trims twigs on his own land is liable for even the smallest amount because he improves the land, even if he intends something else. Uprooting thorns to plow and sow likewise improves the land. The Jerusalem Talmud also indicates that the Mishnah concerns detached thorns.
  6. Improved it — The Jerusalem Talmud explains what this means: Everyone else plows once, but he plows twice.
  7. He improved it and died; his son may sow it — If this extra plowing is prohibited only by rabbinic law, how can this ruling resolve the question about blemishing a firstborn animal, which violates Torah law? But if it too violates Torah law, how can Gittin use it to resolve the question about selling a slave? The slave case may be more severe because the sale keeps him from observing commandments. The answer is that the Gemara considers a violation involving the sabbatical year more severe than all these cases, as Kiddushin says: “How grave are even the lesser violations of the sabbatical year.”

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 34.