Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Bechorot

Bechorot 59 for kids: The Tenth in the Pen

בכורות נ״ט

🐑 This daf asks when an animal becomes the animal tithe. Rava says the tenth can be sacred even if it stays in the pen. He also explains when counting animals exempts them from being tithed later.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Bechorot 59a in Daf QuestOpen Bechorot 59b 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 59

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Bechorot 59 in simple English

Rashi on Bechorot 59a, in English Tab translation (9)
  1. It is juxtaposed — As explained at the start of this chapter, the verse “and your tithes” refers to two tithes: animal tithe and grain tithe.
  2. It is sacred of its own accord — If he counted the animals and the tenth remained in the pen, it is sacred even though it did not emerge and he did not count it.
  3. Perhaps Scripture did not call it the tenth — Perhaps Scripture gives it sanctity, so that it may be eaten only after it develops a blemish, but not the full status of animal tithe, which must be brought as an offering in Jerusalem. Alternatively, perhaps he did not call it “tenth” but did call it “sacred,” and that is why it becomes tithe; if he called it nothing, it might not become sacred like an ordinary tithe animal. This explanation is not from my teacher.
  4. The tenth was identified — Because it emerged after the ninth, it was identifiable as the tenth and therefore has the status of an ordinary tithe animal, even though he did not name it. Alternatively, the baraita concerns a case where he pointed to it as it emerged to designate it as tithe, without speaking. It does not yet show that an animal left in the pen and given no designation becomes sacred like an ordinary tithe animal.
  5. The ninth may be eaten after it develops a blemish — Since he called it “tenth,” and mistakenly applying the name of tithe sanctifies the animals immediately before and after the tenth, as explained below. But the other animals were not thereby exempt, since this one was only the ninth in the count.
  6. And all are exempt — The eight animals that had already emerged.
  7. Because the tenth became sacred — Of its own accord in the pen, even though it did not emerge.
  8. A tally fit to reach ten — When nine had emerged through the opening, the count could still reach ten: the tenth was alive and could have emerged after them and exempted them. Its ability to emerge is treated as though it had emerged and exempted the count; the reason is explained below. The tenth itself, however, was not sacred until it emerged.
  9. And the tenth is the tithe — This shows that it becomes sacred of its own accord in the pen, even though it did not emerge. The Gemara now challenges the baraita’s statement that the ninth may be eaten after it develops a blemish.
Tosafot on Bechorot 59a, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. Teruma of the tithe may also be taken by estimate and by thought — But the verse that establishes separation by thought, “Your teruma shall be reckoned for you,” is addressed to Levites, concerning teruma of the tithe. Why, then, is this rule presented as learned from the teruma separated by Israelites? The verse continues, “like grain from the threshing floor,” referring to that teruma; the wording suggests that its rule was already known. Gittin likewise says that teruma of the tithe is learned from ordinary teruma with respect to estimation, while separation by thought is learned for both from “shall be reckoned.” It seems that the Rabbis disagree with Abba Elazar ben Gomel only about estimation, not thought. Even if they disagree about thought, there may be a reason not to extend the rule from teruma of the tithe, despite its explicit verse. There is a parallel concerning separation from produce kept together: the Jerusalem Talmud says that teruma of the tithe teaches rules to other forms of teruma but does not learn their rules in return. Although “from it” is written concerning teruma of the tithe and is understood to require produce kept together, that requirement is applied to ordinary teruma instead. The Mishnah in Bikkurim says that teruma of the tithe, like first fruits, may be taken from pure produce for impure produce and from produce not kept together. Rabbeinu Tam explains the question in Gittin about whether trustworthy people would separate teruma of the tithe from produce not kept together as referring to a rabbinic requirement; Torah law does not require it. Still, the Rabbis apparently do not dispute separation by thought: Kiddushin challenges a derivation of agency from teruma on the ground that teruma can be separated by thought. That challenge seems to apply to everyone and concerns teruma of the tithe, the subject of the verse “you also.” Rashi’s explanation here, however, implies that they do dispute thought: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, must follow Abba Elazar ben Gomel on that account. It would even imply that the Rabbis deny thought for ordinary teruma, for otherwise tithe could be learned from its being called teruma. One could answer, though, that tithe is called teruma because it contains teruma of the tithe.
  2. By thought — Rashi first explains that a person designates one part as teruma in his mind and eats from another part, without physically separating the teruma. This appears to make “shall be reckoned” permit both silent designation and eating before separation. Rashi offers another explanation: the person says, “The two log that I will later separate,” but separates nothing now. On that explanation speech is needed; it is called “thought” because nothing has yet been separated. Elsewhere, too, thought can include speech. It seems, however, that teruma is valid without speech: the Mishnah lists a mute person among five who should not separate teruma but whose separation is valid, and the Jerusalem Talmud says the obstacle is the blessing. Shevuot explicitly permits a decision made in one’s heart without being spoken, based on “everyone whose heart moved him”; it says that teruma and offerings each have a verse teaching this, so the rule cannot be extended from them to oaths. Eating before physical separation is not the issue: everyone permits it where designation is effective, as shown by the case of wine bought from Samaritans, apart from concerns about retroactive designation or the wineskin bursting. Elsewhere, one may designate second tithe in the northern part of the produce. Why, then, may one not separate teruma and tithes on a Festival? Shabbat permits removing the teruma portion from a mixture of teruma and ordinary produce at a ratio of one to one hundred, answering the objection that this ‘repairs’ the mixture by citing Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who permits mental designation. The answer is that a mixture is different: its teruma had already been separated. One may not carry out the initial separation merely because mental designation is possible. Even doubtful tithe may not be separated on Shabbat, though mental designation permits one to eat from the rest.
  3. Animal tithe is linked to grain tithe — Rashi explains that this comes from “You shall surely tithe,” as stated earlier. If so, this passage cannot follow Rava’s statement that the link concerns the year alone and nothing else. An earlier passage also derives a link from “You shall bring there your tithes,” according to Rabbi Akiva; perhaps that link concerns bringing the tithes there alone. But it remains difficult to see how Rava explains Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. Zevachim likewise derives that a non-Jew’s consecrated animals do not make substitutes: substitution is linked to animal tithe, animal tithe to grain tithe, and grain tithe is stated of Israelites, not non-Jews. The answer is that when Rava limits the link to the year, he means specifically the question of tithing one group for another—for example, one species for another—which resembles tithing new grain for old.
Rashi on Bechorot 59b, in English Tab translation (31)
  1. Even the ninth — Just as an eleventh animal called “tenth” is not sanctified unless the actual tenth was called “ninth,” so too, according to this reasoning, a ninth animal called “tenth” should acquire sanctity requiring it to develop a blemish before it may be eaten only if the actual tenth was called “ninth.” Here that did not happen, so the ninth would remain unconsecrated. As the baraita later explains, the eleventh can become sanctified for sacrifice, whereas the tenth must first lose its designation; the proposed inference applies that requirement to the ninth as well.
  2. For sacrifice — As explained below, an eleventh animal called “tenth” is offered as a peace offering. Despite that stringent sanctity, it is sanctified only if the actual tenth was called “ninth,” removing its designation as tenth.
  3. The ninth — Its sanctity is less stringent.
  4. Which does not acquire sanctity for sacrifice — Even when called “tenth,” it is not offered. It is sanctified only to the extent that it may not be eaten until it develops a blemish, as explained below. Is it not then logical that the same requirement applies?
  5. If not, then not — It should not be sanctified at all.
  6. That very point proves the opposite — The Gemara responds that it is reasonable for the eleventh to require the actual tenth to lose its designation: The eleventh acquires the stringent sanctity of an offering. Without that change, such stringent sanctity would not take effect.
  7. But the ninth — Its sanctity is lighter: It is not offered but merely may not be eaten until it develops a blemish. That lighter sanctity can take effect simply because it was called “tenth,” even if the actual tenth was also called “tenth.”
  8. Alternatively — Another explanation can be given.
  9. The eleventh, after the tenth has been identified — The actual tenth has already emerged before the eleventh and has thereby been identified as the tithe. It is therefore reasonable that the eleventh cannot be sanctified merely by being called “tenth” unless the actual tenth lost that designation. How could another tenth immediately follow one already established as the tenth?
  10. Even though he did not remove its designation — He went on to call this ninth animal “tenth.”
  11. There is nothing more to say — Nothing further can be argued against this reasoning: The ninth can indeed be sanctified even though the actual tenth did not lose its designation.
  12. A tally fit to reach ten exempts — If someone had ten lambs, brought them into the pen, and counted eight or nine, but one of those still in the pen died or left by another opening before the tenth was sanctified, the animals already counted are exempt. When they were counted, enough animals remained in the pen for the count to reach a tenth. This applies even though that count was never completed.
  13. Back among them — It jumped back into the pen. All the animals there are exempt because the already-counted animal is mixed among them; those already counted are exempt even though no tithe was yet separated for them.
  14. Perhaps he separated tithe for them — Perhaps “those counted” means animals that had been counted and for which tithe had already been separated.
  15. Tithe animals — That is, the animals designated as tithes themselves.
  16. They must graze — Each animal might be the tithe animal.
  17. Rather, were they not exempt, and so forth — The wording suggests that the counted animals became exempt through a tally fit to reach ten, not through an already completed tithe: When each passed under the rod, enough animals remained in the pen for the count to reach ten.
  18. And counted five — Five is only an example; the ruling is not limited to that number.
  19. Those counted are exempt — Because they were part of a tally fit to reach ten.
  20. Through this opening — The pen had two openings.
  21. He takes one of them — Since ten animals left through that opening, he selects one of them as the tithe.
  22. And the rest — The four that left through the other opening join a later batch for tithing. A tally fit to reach ten cannot exempt them: When they left, only four remained in the pen, and those four together with them would not make ten.
  23. But if not — The four did not leave through the opening used by the six; they either remained in the pen or left through the opening used by the other four.
  24. The first four and the six are exempt — When the first four left, ten animals still remained in the pen, so their count was fit to reach ten. The last four, whether they remained in the pen or left through a third opening, join a later batch for tithing.
  25. If those six that remained left through either opening — That is, through the opening used by the first four or the opening used by the last four.
  26. He takes one of them — because ten animals were counted at one opening.
  27. And if not — the six remaining animals did not leave through the opening used by either group of four; they either left separately or remained in the pen.
  28. The first four and the last four are exempt — when each group of four came out, enough animals remained to join it and be tithed with it. The six that remained can be counted with either group.
  29. A definite tally fit to reach ten — for example, he counted five or six, enough remained in the pen to join them, and the pen had only one opening. Those remaining animals could certainly have come out through that opening and been tithed with those already counted.
  30. But a doubtful tally fit to reach ten — for example, four came out through one opening and four through another. It is uncertain which opening the six remaining animals would use. One might therefore think they cannot be counted with both groups to exempt all the animals; this teaches otherwise. Another explanation, which I heard from my teacher: the doubt is that the six could join either group of four, so they are counted with both.
  31. Fifteen lambs — this number is not exact; it is simply a typical case in which five can be joined with five.

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 59.