Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Bechorot

Bechorot 56 for kids: Who Counts the Animals?

בכורות נ״ו

🐐 This daf asks which animals must be counted for animal tithe. It looks at animals bought before birth and animals inherited by brothers.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Bechorot 56a in Daf QuestOpen Bechorot 56b 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 56

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Bechorot 56 in simple English

Rashi on Bechorot 56a, in English Tab translation (14)
  1. Your sons cannot be purchased — A son cannot be acquired by purchase or gift; he is born to his father.
  2. But it is written about a firstborn — How can you derive animal tithe from it? Moreover, a firstborn animal is consecrated even if purchased or received as a gift, since it is consecrated at birth.
  3. The verse says, “You shall do” — “So you shall do with your oxen” cannot refer to a firstborn animal: it is consecrated at birth and needs no act by its owner to consecrate it.
  4. To a sin offering or a guilt offering — The rule would mean that one may not bring either from an animal purchased or received as a gift.
  5. Like your sons — The verse speaks of a firstborn son: just as he is not brought to atone for a sin, so too the animal offering in question is not brought to atone for a sin.
  6. A firstborn is not a vow or a voluntary offering — It is an obligation.
  7. But say it refers to a burnt offering of appearance — That offering is obligatory and is not brought to atone for a sin.
  8. A firstborn has no fixed time for its consecration — It is consecrated when it is born.
  9. At the time of doing — The verse excludes purchased animals when they are fit to be tithed. While they are in their mothers’ wombs, it is not yet the time of doing.
  10. I saw Rabbi Yoḥanan in a dream — He appeared to me last night, so I know that I will say something sound today.
  11. It applies to an animal not yet old enough — If one buys it before seven days have passed since its birth, it does not enter the pen to be tithed; all the more so if one buys it when it is older. Yet even though it is not yet the time of doing, the rule for purchased animals applies to it.
  12. And if you say it is an authoritative teaching, it is certainly Rabbi Shimon’s view — For Rabbi Shimon, an animal not yet old enough has reached the time of doing, so the rule for purchased animals applies to it. He agrees, however, that the rule does not apply while it is in its mother’s womb.
  13. And he bought it back from her — If he has nine other animals obligated in tithe and one of them comes out tenth, all is well. If the animal given as a prostitute’s fee comes out tenth, its owner may eat it once it develops a blemish.
  14. He overlooked — The one raising the objection overlooked Rabbi Asi’s statement. Here too, the animal was given while it was in its mother’s womb.
Tosafot on Bechorot 56a, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. Just as your son is not subject to the law when purchased or received as a gift — One might object that we cannot derive a law for a possible case from an impossible one, as Rabbi Akiva says in Menachot when discussing the Passover offering in later generations and the Passover offering in Egypt. There, however, the derivation is by analogy; here it is by a scriptural comparison, and Rabbi Akiva agrees that when Scripture necessarily links two cases, we make the comparison. But in that discussion Rabbi Eliezer also cites “You shall perform,” teaching that the rites performed in this month must be alike. That, too, appears to be a scriptural comparison, yet Rabbi Akiva disagrees. Nor can we say Rabbi Akiva rejects that comparison altogether, since it is used elsewhere to link the two Passover offerings in several respects. Rather, because the comparison is needed for other laws, we cannot say that Scripture necessarily linked them on the question of deriving a possible case from an impossible one. One might also ask how Rabbi Aḥadvoi bar Ami, who does not accept that answer about a necessary comparison, would explain our passage. It could follow Rabbi Eliezer; alternatively, the comparison in the passage he discusses is needed for other laws, so he cannot attribute that passage to Rabbi Akiva. A difficulty remains, however, from the law that lashes are not apportioned among witnesses: it is derived from the law of a death penalty, although this derives a possible case from an impossible one, and the verbal analogy there is needed for several other laws.
  2. The verse says, “So you shall do”; if it does not apply to a firstborn animal — But earlier, this phrase is expounded regarding a firstborn animal: Scripture added another required action for your ox. We can answer that it is expounded regarding a firstborn because it appears in a verse about one. Yet, since Scripture expresses it as an action, it is also expounded regarding animal tithe, for a firstborn animal does not become sacred through an act of consecration.
  3. He purchased ten fetuses while they were in their mothers’ wombs — This is not meant exclusively: the same law applies if they had already been born but were still too young to be offered. Alternatively, the case specifies fetuses so that the law applies even according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, who says that an animal too young to be offered enters the pen for tithing.
Rashi on Bechorot 56b, in English Tab translation (24)
  1. Let her tithe it herself — Since he gave her the animal while it was still in its mother’s womb, it is not disqualified as payment to a prostitute. If it emerges as the tenth animal, it may be eaten once it develops a blemish. Why, then, must he buy it back?
  2. This teaches us — The baraita’s case of prohibited payment to a prostitute concerns a gentile prostitute. If she were Jewish, the animal would not have that status and would even be permitted for the altar.
  3. With regard to forbidden relations — The verse calls them “abominations,” and the verse about payment to a prostitute says, “For both of these are an abomination to the Lord.”
  4. Just as betrothal does not take effect in cases of forbidden relations — These are relations punishable by excision, and all agree that betrothal does not take effect in such cases, as explained in tractate Yevamot.
  5. They are not his offspring — A child’s status follows that of a gentile mother. As taught in tractate Yevamot, a child born to you from a Jewish woman is called your child, but one born to you from a gentile woman is called her child, not yours.
  6. Mishna: Brothers who are partners, when they must pay the premium — This is when they divided their father’s estate and then formed a partnership. If they pay their two half-shekels together as one whole shekel, each must add a small coin as a premium: their payments come from two separate estates. Some explain that the premium covers the weight of the coins; others say it is a charge for exchanging two half-shekels for a whole shekel. Since each person normally pays a premium with his half-shekel, joining two payments does not remove either premium. These brothers are like any other partners.
  7. They are exempt from animal tithe — They remain exempt throughout their partnership, because the verse says “that shall be yours,” excluding jointly owned animals.
  8. When they are obligated in animal tithe — This is when they have not divided the estate and it remains in their father’s household’s possession. They are not treated as ordinary partners but as standing in their father’s place.
  9. They are exempt from the premium — They need not pay a second premium if they give one whole shekel for the two of them. The property remains in their father’s place, and if he paid a whole shekel for two sons, he would not pay an exchange charge. This differs from two people combining their half-shekels into one whole shekel.
  10. They acquired animals through their father’s household’s possession — They are obligated in animal tithe. Here “acquired” does not mean bought with money; it means that animals came to them as an inheritance from their father.
  11. They divided and then formed a partnership again — They are like ordinary partners: exempt from animal tithe and obligated to pay the premium.
  12. Gemara: The males that shall be yours — The verse says, “The males that shall be yours.”
  13. But not those owned by partners — “Yours” implies animals belonging specifically to you, not jointly owned animals.
  14. Shall be — This wording includes animals regardless of how they came into one’s possession.
  15. The firstborn of your herd — “Your” is plural: the verse addresses two owners.
  16. Both this and that — Both the premium and animal tithe.
  17. They divided the money — Then they formed a partnership again, but they did not divide the animals. For the premium, they are like ordinary partners; for animal tithe, the animals remain in their father’s household’s possession.
  18. They divided the animals but not the money — It is necessary to teach that they are exempt from both obligations. One might have thought that dividing the animals shows they intend to divide the rest of the estate too, making them liable for the premium.
  19. This was taught only — Their division makes them partners, exempting them from animal tithe after they form a partnership again, only when they divided the animals by assessed value.
  20. Kids against mature goats, and mature goats against kids — They exchanged animals according to their value. Neither brother can say that what he received was precisely his share from their father: at their father’s death, each inherited half of each group. Their division is therefore a purchase from one another. Animals already born at the time of division are exempt from tithe as purchased animals, and those born later are exempt as jointly owned animals.
  21. But if they divided kids against kids and mature goats against mature goats — We say that the division identifies the share each inherited at their father’s death. The animals retain their status as inherited property, and when the brothers reunite them, the father’s household’s possession is restored rather than a new partnership formed. Thus, animals already born are not exempt as purchased animals, and those born later are not exempt as jointly owned animals.
  22. Even if they divided, and so on — The division does not identify each brother’s original share. They first become purchasers from one another and then become partners.
  23. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree on the same issue as Rav Anan and Rav Naḥman.
  24. Nine — Nine larger animals against ten smaller ones is a division by assessed value; it cannot be said to identify each brother’s original inherited share.
Tosafot on Bechorot 56b, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. A Jewish prostitute’s payment is permitted, but a priest who has relations with her… — One might object: Rava says that payment for relations even with one’s mother is prohibited, and a baraita in Temurah says that the prohibition applies to payment arising from a transgression, but not to payment to one’s menstruating wife. Here, however, the discussion is limited to a woman with whom betrothal can take effect; that is why her payment is permitted. The priest can still be flogged if she is a convert or freed slave who has the status of a prostitute; if relations with another man, forbidden to her on pain of excision, made her a prostitute; or, according to the view that unmarried relations without intent to marry make a woman a prostitute. The Gemara could have found a case in which a Jewish prostitute tithes the animal herself by using a woman forbidden to the man on pain of excision, but it chose instead to teach that payment to a Jewish prostitute is permitted. One might also object that Rava says payment to either a gentile or a Jewish prostitute is prohibited. Rava could answer that this baraita was not taught in the academies of Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Oshaya. Alternatively, he could say that the baraita could indeed have said that she tithes it herself, but instead teaches, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan, that an animal acquired while still in its mother’s womb is subject to tithe. That point could also be learned from a case in which she tithes it herself after receiving it in the womb: it is not exempt merely because it was acquired or given as a gift.
  2. Just as with forbidden relations, where betrothal does not take effect… — Why does this comparison not exclude a gentile prostitute? With a woman forbidden by the laws of incest, betrothal cannot take effect with this man but can with others; with a gentile woman, it cannot take effect with anyone. Indeed, in Yevamot this distinction is used to explain the view that the child of a gentile or slave man and a Jewish woman is not a mamzer, and Rava holds both that view and that payment to a gentile prostitute is prohibited. The answer is that the complete impossibility of betrothal makes the designation “prostitute” apply all the more to a gentile woman. But it does not make her child a mamzer, since she is no more eligible for betrothal with another man than with this one.
  3. For it applies to jointly owned animals — As the verse says, “the firstborn of your herd and your flock.” At the beginning of this tractate, I explained why this verse is needed: the inclusion of jointly owned firstborn animals could seemingly be inferred from the need to exclude animals jointly owned with a gentile.

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 56.