Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Bechorot

Bechorot 53 for kids: Counting the Flock

בכורות נ״ג

🐑 This daf asks which animals are counted together for animal tithe. It also asks why people do not separate animal tithe now, even though the mitzva applies without the Temple.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Bechorot 53a in Daf QuestOpen Bechorot 53b 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 53

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Bechorot 53 in simple English

Rashi on Bechorot 53a, in English Tab translation (19)
  1. Mishna: Animal tithe, etc.; sheep and goats — That is, the mitzva applies to both sheep and goats.
  2. New — Animals born after Elul.
  3. Old — Animals born before Elul.
  4. New and old animals are not tithed from one for the other — As the Gemara explains.
  5. Gemara: Shall we say the mishna — Which teaches that animal tithe applies outside Eretz Yisrael.
  6. Grain tithe — It applies only in Eretz Yisrael. As stated in the first chapter of Kiddushin (37a), a mitzva tied to the land applies only there; this is derived from Scripture.
  7. To be offered — Not to be consecrated. When the mishna says the tithe applies, it means the animal becomes consecrated. The Gemara soon explains the practical effect of that consecration.
  8. The wording is also precise — Rabbi Akiva excludes bringing the animal as an offering: the verse cited for his teaching says, “And you shall bring there,” referring to bringing an offering.
  9. With its blemish — The owner waits until the animal develops a blemish and then eats it. Whether unblemished or blemished, the animal tithe belongs to its owner; no verse requires giving it to a priest.
  10. As Rav Huna said — Later in this chapter, in Bekhorot 58b.
  11. A decree due to an orphan — The concern is that someone might put an orphaned animal in the pen to be tithed. The mishna excludes hybrids, animals with a fatal injury, animals born by cesarean section, animals too young to be offered, and orphans. Rav Huna singles out orphans because, in his later discussion, only purchased animals and orphans are relevant. An orphan here is an animal whose mother died during its birth: the mother departed toward death as the offspring departed toward life.
  12. Originally too — When the Temple stood, they should likewise have decreed against tithing because of orphans.
  13. Rather — They did not make such a decree when the Temple stood because a court could announce that people must not put orphans in the pen for tithing. If so, an announcement should also suffice today.
  14. Due to a mishap — There is no altar on which to offer the animal, so one must keep it until it develops a blemish. Meanwhile, someone might mistakenly shear it, work with it, or slaughter it before it has a blemish.
  15. Nor dedicate items as devoted property — Devoted property is sacred, like other consecrated property, as the verse says, “Every devoted thing is most holy…”
  16. It should be destroyed — So that it does not lead to a violation.
  17. It dies on its own — From hunger.
  18. Does a firstborn depend on us? — This is a rhetorical question.
  19. This is what he means — The question is: Since you are concerned about a mishap, why not transfer ownership of the mother animals’ ears to non-Jews? Their partial ownership would prevent the offspring from becoming sanctified as firstborn.
Tosafot on Bechorot 53a, in English Tab translation (8)
  1. Animal tithe, etc. — The laws of the firstborn, animal tithe, and the Passover offering are often discussed together because their priestly gifts are alike. Animal tithe is taught here alongside the firstborn; the more extensive laws of the Passover offering are taught in Pesachim.
  2. It applies in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael — The statement at the beginning of the chapter on sending away the mother bird that this wording is unnecessary, except in the case of the first shearing, refers to the laws listed there. Here the distinction needs to be stated.
  3. Rabbi Akiva says: One might have thought that a person must bring up his animal tithe, etc. — In Temura, Rabbi Akiva likewise holds that a firstborn animal brought from outside Eretz Yisrael is not sacrificed. There, the account of Ben Antigonus bringing firstborn animals from Babylonia and having them refused is explained according to Rabbi Akiva.
  4. As Rav Huna says: A decree because of an orphan — Rav Huna says this later, in a discussion of how animals are tithed. There, the concern could not be about crossbred animals, fatally injured animals, or animals born by Caesarean section. Here those could also have been mentioned, but the Gemara repeats Rav Huna’s wording. Yet why does it not also mention a purchased animal, as he does there? It seems that an orphan is singled out here because people are more likely to err about it: few know that, in this context, an orphan can only be an animal whose mother died as it was being born.
  5. Rather, because of a possible mishap — This implies that animal tithe is not practiced nowadays because it could lead to misuse of a consecrated animal. Rabbeinu Tam asks: The Talmud says Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah tithed twelve thousand calves from his herd each year, yet he lived after the Temple’s destruction. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai led the people after the destruction, Rabban Gamliel succeeded him, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah was appointed leader in Rabban Gamliel’s time, when he was eighteen. This cannot mean a tithe paid to the king, like a tax. It is also strained to say that a guardian tithed the herd for him while he was a child. Perhaps the practice of animal tithe was not discontinued so soon after the destruction.
  6. Nor may one dedicate property by a vow of devotion nowadays — Even according to the view that an unspecified vow of devotion gives the property to priests, a mishap remains possible, even if the priests are specified: the property is sacred while still in its owner’s hands. Rashi instead explains that this ruling follows the view that an unspecified vow gives the property to the Temple treasury; it can also be explained as above. Elsewhere, Ulla says that he would have given a man’s devoted property entirely to a priest, because he holds that an unspecified vow gives it to priests. That case can be distinguished as involving land. Rabbeinu Tam also asks how Rav Yehuda, who holds that an unspecified vow gives property to the Temple treasury, could permit that property through redemption by casting four coins into a river. He answers that it involved land: leaving it permanently forbidden would create an even greater risk of misuse. But the discussion there appears to concern movable property, since it distinguishes land from movable property. The answer is that land outside Eretz Yisrael is called movable property there, because it has the same legal status. Although the account of the incident appears to include both land and movable property, only the land was permitted. That also explains why the Gemara takes it as certain that land was involved: had there been only movable property, it would not have been permitted.
  7. Money and metal vessels: he should cast their value into the Dead Sea — This implies that an ordinary river does not suffice. Elsewhere, too, an object cast into an ordinary river must first be ground up, whereas it may be cast into the Dead Sea intact. The same instruction to use the Dead Sea is given for money set aside for a nazirite’s offerings if the nazirite dies. Why, then, do passages in Arakhin and Yoma speak of casting four coins into a river? Perhaps those coins are first ground up. Accordingly, someone who now redeems fourth-year vineyard produce or fruit from a fourth-year tree onto coins must grind the coins before casting them into a river.
  8. What is meant by destroying it? Closing a door, etc. — We would not permit this for a firstborn animal nowadays. Its Israelite owner must fulfill the duty to give it to a priest and wait for one willing to accept it, even beyond the thirty days prescribed for a small animal or fifty for a large one. Those periods specify how long the owner must care for it even if a priest asks to take it sooner. Nor may a priest who has received it shut it in an enclosure to die: no source permits that for a firstborn. The Mishnah’s example of an old ram with hanging wool suggests that people waited until a blemish developed. A firstborn with a blemish may be eaten without redemption, so shutting it away would needlessly destroy a sacred animal. An animal newly consecrated nowadays remains forbidden even if it develops a blemish unless it is redeemed; redemption would then require its monetary value to be destroyed. Thus shutting it away now causes no comparable loss of sacred property.
Rashi on Bechorot 53b, in English Tab translation (28)
  1. And he answers, “It is possible” — there is another solution, following Rabbi Yehuda, and it is preferable to this one. As explained earlier, Rav Mari’s animals died out after he transferred ownership of their ears to a gentile, thereby removing even the sanctity that gives the priest a claim to them.
  2. Here too — with animal tithe, perhaps there is a solution that avoids keeping the animals: inflict a blemish before tithing them.
  3. And he answers, “Who knows which will emerge?” — one cannot know in advance which animal will come out tenth.
  4. At the head of the ten — so that it will be the tenth animal.
  5. He shall not inquire — the animal must come out on its own; the owner may not deliberately bring out a particular one.
  6. And if you say he can blemish his entire herd — he could do so before tithing, while the animals are still ordinary animals and blemishing them is permitted. He could then tithe them, since animal tithe takes effect even on a blemished animal, as it says, “He shall not inquire whether it be good or bad.”
  7. Here too, regarding a firstborn — if you say to blemish it, one could object that the Temple may soon be rebuilt and unblemished animals will be needed for offerings.
  8. Here too, purchased animals are possible — purchased animals need not be blemished, since they are exempt from animal tithe. The mishna teaches that an animal purchased or received as a gift is exempt.
  9. And he answers: Since each owner blemishes his entire herd — the animals born in those herds will be blemished, leaving few unblemished animals available for purchase. Many kinds of blemishes disqualify an offering, even a thin film over the eye. Animals fit for offerings will therefore be scarce, so we do not separate animal tithe.
  10. According to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili — the mishna needs to exclude offerings of lesser sanctity. If someone was entrusted with another person’s peace offerings, denied having them, swore falsely, and then confessed, he pays the principal and an additional fifth and brings a guilt offering. The verses speak of wronging both the Lord and one’s fellow, and both have a stake in peace offerings.
  11. Here too — perhaps offerings of lesser sanctity should be tithed.
  12. Shall be holy — the tenth animal shall become holy.
  13. The sanctity of tithe — as explained below, this would subject the animal to the prohibitions against selling or redeeming it.
  14. From one sanctity to another — altar sanctity cannot take effect on an animal dedicated to Temple maintenance, even though altar sanctity is stricter. Nor does dedicating an altar offering to Temple maintenance require paying its full value to the maintenance fund.
  15. But one may dedicate — an altar offering to Temple maintenance.
  16. A dedication of its added value — the owner may give the Temple maintenance fund the value of a benefit he still holds in an altar offering. For example, he may receive a coin from someone in exchange for giving the offering to that person’s grandson, who is a priest, to bring it. The owner assesses that benefit and pays its value to the Temple treasurer.
  17. And one may designate them for the priests — one may designate the value of that same benefit in an altar offering for a priest. No new sanctity can take effect on the altar’s portion.
  18. You might have thought — altar sanctity cannot take effect on an animal already dedicated to Temple maintenance because most animals are meant for food, not offerings; its dedication to maintenance therefore took full effect. But every animal is eligible for tithe, so perhaps dedicating one as a peace offering does not remove it from animal tithe.
  19. What practical difference would it make? — if tithe sanctity took effect on a peace offering, would it matter? Animal tithe is no stricter than a peace offering.
  20. To subject it to “it shall not be sold or redeemed” — peace offerings can be redeemed. The verse therefore teaches that the tenth animal must become holy; an animal already holy cannot become animal tithe.
  21. Just as grain tithe cannot be taken from new produce for old — the verse says, “the produce of the field, year by year.” One may not tithe produce of one year for produce of another.
  22. Just as grain tithe cannot be taken from one kind for another — as explained below, one must tithe each kind separately.
  23. And flock — the word suggests that all flock animals count as one kind for animal tithe.
  24. But does it not say, “You shall surely tithe”? — this links animal tithe to grain tithe.
  25. I compared them regarding the year — animal tithe is like grain tithe in this respect: one may not tithe animals born before Elul for animals born after Elul.
  26. And not for something else — each kind with its own kind.
  27. One may not set aside terumah — this refers to the tithe of grain.
  28. Give the choice portion to this one and the choice portion to that one — this refers to terumah and tithe, as it is written, “When you set aside its choice portion from it” (Numbers 18:30). The Torah says to give each recipient the tithe due to him separately.
Tosafot on Bechorot 53b, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. One can act as Rabbi Yehuda advises — Earlier, in the first chapter (Bekhorot 3b), I explained that we may transfer ownership of a pregnant animal to a gentile, since we do not follow Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling.
  2. Consecration of its value — Rashi explains that the owner can dedicate to Temple maintenance the benefit he has in choosing which priest receives an altar offering: he could take a coin from someone in return for giving the offering to that person’s grandson, who is a priest, to sacrifice. But Arakhin 28a explains the valuation differently. It teaches that a person may dedicate an offering he has already consecrated, whether it is of greater or lesser sanctity. If he pledged it as a binding vow, he pays its full value, since he must replace it if it is lost. If he gave it as a voluntary offering, he pays only the value of the benefit: for an ox designated as a burnt offering, one estimates what someone would pay to offer that ox when under no obligation to do so. The benefit Rashi cites applies to something that may be eaten, as in the cases discussed there. Similarly, Arakhin 28b values a firstborn animal, whether unblemished or blemished, by what someone would pay for the right to give it to his grandson or sister’s son. Alternatively, that benefit applies to something that cannot be offered as a vow or voluntary offering; for something that can, the other method of valuation applies.
  3. The verse says, ‘You shall surely tithe’ — Here a textual analogy overrides an argument from the more stringent case. Earlier, concerning disqualified consecrated animals (Bekhorot 33a), such an argument overrides a textual analogy in the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, where Beit Hillel permit them even to non-priests. I explained that there.

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 53.