## Bekhorot Daf 57a

###### Bekhorot 57a:1
[Bekhorot 57a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/57a:1)

וְאַזְדָּא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ — לָקוֹחוֹת הֵן, וּמַחְזִירִין זֶה לָזֶה בַּיּוֹבֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his** established line of **reasoning** in this regard. **As Rav Asi says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Brothers who divided** real estate received as an inheritance **are** considered **purchasers** who have purchased from each other, **and** as purchasers of land **they must return** the portions **to each other in the Jubilee** Year, at which point they may redistribute the property. This demonstrates that Rabbi Yoḥanan does not hold that it is retroactively established that each brother’s portion was designated for him upon their father’s death. Rather, it is considered as though all the land was joint property until the brothers traded or bought their respective portions from each other.


###### Bekhorot 57a:2
[Bekhorot 57a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/57a:2)

וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָכָא, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דּוּמְיָא דְּבִנְךָ, מָה בִּנְךָ בְּבָרוּר לָךְ, אַף שׁוֹרְךָ וְצֹאנְךָ בְּבָרוּר לָךְ; אֲבָל שָׂדֶה מֶכֶר הוּא דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא לֶיהְדַּר בְּיוֹבֵל, יְרוּשָּׁה וּמַתָּנָה לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** both statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan **are necessary. As, if he had taught** this *halakha* to **us** only **here,** with regard to animal tithe, one might have thought that it is **in this** case that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** each one has not received his own portion. This is because the case must be **similar to** the case of **your** firstborn **son,** in accordance with the juxtaposition between the two cases. **Just as your** firstborn **son** is redeemed only if it **is clear to you** that he is your son, not if he is purchased from another, **so too, your cattle and your sheep** are subject to animal tithe only if it **is clear to you,** i.e., if there is no aspect of acquisition at all. **But** in the case of **a field,** one might think **it is** only with regard to a field that is **sold that the Merciful One states** that the purchaser **should return it in the Jubilee** Year, whereas a field that **is an inheritance or a gift** need **not** be returned.


###### Bekhorot 57a:3
[Bekhorot 57a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/57a:3)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן שָׂדֶה — לְחוּמְרָא, אִי נָמֵי לְכַתְּחִלָּה, אֲבָל הָכָא — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** Rabbi Yoḥanan **had taught us** only the *halakha* that **a field** inherited by two brothers must be returned in the Jubilee Year, one might have thought that Rabbi Yoḥanan was uncertain and therefore ruled **to be stringent.** If so, he would rule stringently with regard to animal tithe as well, deeming the brothers liable. **Alternatively,** one might think Rabbi Yoḥanan rules in this manner with regard to returning fields in the Jubilee Year only because the field must return to how it was **in the beginning. But here,** in the case of animal tithe, where there is no requirement to return matters to their initial state, one might **say** that the brothers are **not** considered to be purchasers, but rather each received the animals that were retroactively designated for him and they are therefore obligated in animal tithe. For this reason it **is necessary** for Rabbi Yoḥanan to teach both cases.


###### Bekhorot 57a:4
[Bekhorot 57a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/57a:4)

מֵיתִיבִי: וְכֵן הַשּׁוּתָּפִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ, אֶחָד נָטַל עֲשָׂרָה וְאֶחָד נָטַל תִּשְׁעָה וָכֶלֶב — שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הַכֶּלֶב אֲסוּרִין, שֶׁעִם הַכֶּלֶב מוּתָּרִים. וְאִם אָמְרַתְּ יֵשׁ בְּרֵירָה, לִיבְרוֹר חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ לְבַהֲדֵי כֶלֶב וְלִשְׁקוֹל, וְהָנָךְ לִישְׁתְּרוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita* against the opinion that there is retroactive designation of the animals: **And similarly** in the case of two **partners who divided** their common property, and **one took ten** lambs **and** the other **one took nine** lambs **and a dog,** sacrificing any of the ten lambs taken **in exchange for the dog is prohibited.** This is because they are considered “the price of a dog,” as it states in the Torah (Deuteronomy 23:19), since they were given in exchange for it. Nevertheless, the nine lambs **that** were taken **with the dog are permitted** for sacrifice. The Gemara explains the objection: **And if you say** that **there is** retroactive **designation,** why are all ten lambs prohibited? **Let him select one of** the lambs **to correspond to the dog and take it** away, **and** all the rest of **these** lambs **should be permitted.**


###### Bekhorot 57a:5
[Bekhorot 57a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/57a:5)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אִי דְּשָׁווּ כּוּלְּהוּ לַהֲדָדֵי — הָכִי נָמֵי, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? דְּלָא שָׁווּ כּוּלְּהוּ לַהֲדָדֵי, וְשָׁוֵי הַאי כַּלְבָּא חַד וּמַשֶּׁהוּ, וְהַאי מַשֶּׁהוּ מָשֵׁיךְ וְאָתֵי בְּכוּלְּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: If** this is referring to a case **where they are all equal** in value **to each other, indeed** one may consider only one of the lambs as corresponding to the dog. **Here, we are dealing with** a case **where they are not all equal** in value **to each other, but the value of this dog is one and** a small **amount** more than the value of each one of the ten lambs. Therefore, one cannot set aside a single lamb in exchange for the dog, **and** consequently one **draws this** extra small **amount,** i.e., the additional value of the dog, and divides it **between all of** the other nine lambs. As a result, all ten lambs are prohibited, since part of the price of a dog is included in each of them.


###### Bekhorot 57a:6
[Bekhorot 57a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/57a:6)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַכֹּל נִכְנָסִין לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר, חוּץ מִן כִּלְאַיִם, וּטְרֵפָה, וְיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן, וּמְחוּסַּר זְמַן, וְהַיָּתוֹם. וְאֵיזֶהוּ יָתוֹם? כֹּל שֶׁמֵּתָה אִמָּהּ שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָלְדָה. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ נִשְׁחֲטָה אִמָּהּ וְהַשֶּׁלַח קַיָּים — אֵין זֶה יָתוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **All** cattle, sheep, and goats **enter the pen to be tithed, except for** an animal crossbred **from diverse kinds,** e.g., a hybrid of a goat and a sheep; **a *tereifa*;** an animal **born by caesarean section;** one **whose time has not yet** arrived, i.e., that is younger than eight days old, which is when animals become eligible for sacrifice; **and an orphan. And what is an orphan?** It is **any** animal **whose mother died** or **was slaughtered** while giving birth to it **and thereafter** completed **giving birth** to it. **Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even if its mother was slaughtered but its hide exists** at birth, i.e., if the mother’s hide is present after the birth, **this is not an orphan.**


###### Bekhorot 57a:7
[Bekhorot 57a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/57a:7)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב״ — פְּרָט לְכִלְאַיִם, ״אוֹ עֵז״ — פְּרָט לְנִדְמֶה, ״כִּי יִוָּלֵד״ — פְּרָט לְיוֹצֵא דוֹפֶן, ״וְהָיָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים״ — פְּרָט לִמְחוּסַּר זְמַן, ״תַּחַת אִמּוֹ״ — פְּרָט לְיָתוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters,** i.e., the fact that those animals are not included in the animal tithe, derived? The Gemara answers: **As the Sages taught** in a *baraita* that discusses offerings in general: “When a bull or a sheep or a goat is born, then it shall be seven days under its mother, but from the eighth day onward it may be accepted for an offering made by fire to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:27). The phrase **“a bull or a sheep”** serves to **exclude** an animal born **from diverse kinds; “or a goat”** serves to **exclude** an animal that **resembles** another, e.g., a sheep that is the offspring of two sheep but which looks like a goat, or vice versa; **“when…is born”** serves to **exclude** an animal **born by caesarean section; “then it shall be seven days”** serves to **exclude** an animal **whose time has not yet** arrived; **“under its mother”** serves to **exclude an orphan.**


###### Bekhorot 57a:8
[Bekhorot 57a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/57a:8)

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״תַּחַת אִמּוֹ״. מָה לְהַלָּן — פְּרָט לְכׇל הַשֵּׁמוֹת הַלָּלוּ, אַף כָּאן — פְּרָט לְכׇל הַשֵּׁמוֹת הַלָּלוּ. וּמָה כָּאן — פְּרָט לִטְרֵפָה, אַף לְהַלָּן — פְּרָט לִטְרֵפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: From where is it derived that these *halakhot* also apply to animal tithe? **Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says** it is learned by a verbal analogy from the term “under.” It **is stated here,** with regard to animal tithe: “Whatever passes **under the rod”** (Leviticus 27:32), **and** it **is stated there,** with regard to all offerings: **“Under its mother”** (Leviticus 22:27). **Just as there,** in the case of all offerings, the verse serves to **exclude all these categories, so too here,** with regard to animal tithe, the verse serves to **exclude all these categories. And just as here,** with regard to animal tithe, the verse serves to **exclude a *tereifa*,** as the verse states: “Whatever passes under the rod,” and a *tereifa* is unable to pass unaided, **so too there,** with regard to all offerings, the verse serves to **exclude a *tereifa*.**


###### Bekhorot 57a:9
[Bekhorot 57a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/57a:9)

״הַכֹּל״, לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵיתוֹיֵי הָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָרוֹבֵעַ, וְהַנִּרְבָּע, וְהַמּוּקְצֶה, וְהַנֶּעֱבָד, וְהָאֶתְנַן, וְהַמְחִיר, וְטוּמְטוּם, וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — כּוּלָּן נִכְנָסִין לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס אֵין נִכְנָסִין לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **What** does the mishna’s expansive term: **All,** serve **to include?** The Gemara answers that it serves **to include this** *halakha* **that the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **an animal that copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality, or** an animal that was **set aside** for idol worship, **or** one that **was worshipped** as a deity, **or** one that was given as **payment** to a prostitute **or** as the **price** of a dog, **or a *tumtum*,** i.e., an animal whose sexual organs are indeterminate, **or a hermaphrodite,** i.e., an animal displaying sexual organs of both sexes, **all of these enter the pen to be tithed** despite the fact that they are disqualified from being brought as offerings. **Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: A *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite do not enter the pen to be tithed.**


###### Bekhorot 57a:10
[Bekhorot 57a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/57a:10)

וְתַנָּא דִּידַן, אִי גָּמַר ״תַּחַת״ ״תַּחַת״ מִקֳּדָשִׁים — הָנֵי נָמֵי לָא, וְאִי לָא יָלֵיף — הָנֵי מְנָא לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** as for **the *tanna* of our** mishna, **if he derives** the verbal analogy of: **“Under”** (Leviticus 27:32), and: **“Under”** (Leviticus 22:27), **from** the verse referring to **sacrificial** animals, then **these** types listed in the *baraita* should **also not** enter the pen to be tithed, as they are all disqualified from being sacrificed. **And if he does not derive** the verbal analogy from sacrificial animals, **from where** does he derive the exemption of **these** categories listed in the mishna, e.g., one whose time has not yet arrived and an orphan?


###### Bekhorot 57a:11
[Bekhorot 57a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/57a:11)

לְעוֹלָם גָּמַיר, וְהָנֵי רַחֲמָנָא רַבִּינְהוּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי מׇשְׁחָתָם בָּהֶם מוּם בָּם לֹא יֵרָצוּ לָכֶם״, וְתָאנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ הַשְׁחָתָה, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** the *tanna* does **derive** the verbal analogy, **but these** categories listed in the *baraita* **are included by the Merciful One** in the animal tithe. **As it is written** with regard to those animals that may not be brought as offerings: “Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of these, **because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them”** (Leviticus 22:25). This verse indicates that corruption is considered a blemish, **and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that** the term: **Corruption, is stated,** it **is** a reference to **nothing other than a matter of licentiousness and idol worship.**


###### Bekhorot 57a:12
[Bekhorot 57a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/57a:12)

דְּבַר עֶרְוָה — דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי הִשְׁחִית כׇּל בָּשָׂר אֶת דַּרְכּוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ״, עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — דִּכְתִיב: ״פֶּן תַּשְׁחִיתוּן וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לָכֶם פֶּסֶל תְּמוּנַת כׇּל סָמֶל תַּבְנִית זָכָר אוֹ נְקֵבָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* supports this claim: Corruption is a reference to **a matter of licentiousness, as it is written** with regard to the generation of the flood: “And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; **for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth”** (Genesis 6:12). **And** corruption is also a reference to **idol worship, as it is written: “Lest you deal corruptly, and make you a graven image, the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female”** (Deuteronomy 4:16).


###### Bekhorot 57a:13
[Bekhorot 57a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/57a:13)

וְכֹל שֶׁהַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בּוֹ — דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה פּוֹסְלִין בּוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בּוֹ — אֵין דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה פּוֹסְלִין בּוֹ, וְהַאי מַעֲשֵׂר הוֹאִיל וְלָא פָּסֵיל בֵּיהּ מוּמָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יְבַקֵּר בֵּין טוֹב לָרַע וְלֹא יְמִירֶנּוּ״ — דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נָמֵי לָא פָּסֵיל בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the juxtaposition of the word “corruption” with the word “blemish” in Leviticus 22:25 teaches that in **any** case **where a blemish disqualifies** an animal, **a matter of licentiousness or** a matter of **idol worship also disqualifies it. And** in a case **where a blemish does not disqualify** an animal, **a matter of licentiousness or** a matter of **idol worship** also **does not disqualify it. And** with regard to **this** animal **tithe, since a blemish** on an animal **does not disqualify it, as it is written: “He shall not inquire whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it”** (Leviticus 27:33), **a matter of licentiousness or** a matter of **idol worship also does not disqualify it.**


###### Bekhorot 57a:14
[Bekhorot 57a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/57a:14)

רוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע — דְּבַר עֶרְוָה, מוּקְצֶה וְנֶעֱבָד — עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְאֶתְנַן — דְּבַר עֶרְוָה, וּמְחִיר אִיתַּקַּשׁ לְאֶתְנַן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further explains that the categories listed in the *baraita* are either matters of licentiousness or matters of idol worship. **An animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality** are both **a matter of licentiousness.** An animal that was **set aside** for idol worship **and** one that **was worshipped** are cases of **idol worship. And** an animal that was given as **payment** to a prostitute is **a matter of licentiousness, and** an animal used as the **price** of a dog **is juxtaposed to** an animal that was given as **payment** to a prostitute (see Deuteronomy 23:19).


###### Bekhorot 57a:15
[Bekhorot 57a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/57a:15)

טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — קָסָבַר: סְפֵיקָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Finally, with regard to an animal that is **a *tumtum* or a hermaphrodite,** the *tanna* **holds** that **it is uncertain** whether it is male or female, not a creature unto itself, and therefore a *tumtum* is also subject to the tithe.


###### Bekhorot 57a:16
[Bekhorot 57a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/57a:16)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. קָסָבַר סְפֵיקָא הוּא, מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים — זָכָר וַדַּאי וּנְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית, וְלֹא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס. מַעֲשֵׂר נָמֵי גְּמַר ״תַּחַת״ ״תַּחַת״ מִקֳּדָשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* states that **Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says** in the name of Rabbi Shimon: A *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite do not enter the pen to be tithed. The Gemara explains: **He holds that** the case of an animal that is a *tumtum* or a hermaphrodite involves an **uncertainty,** and **the Merciful One excluded** cases of uncertainty **with regard to sacrificial** animals. Only **a definite male or a definite female** is fit to be sacrificed on the altar, **but not a *tumtum* or a hermaphrodite.** Consequently, with regard to animal **tithe too,** they do not enter the pen to be tithed, as he **derives** the verbal analogy of **“under”** and **“under” from sacrificial** animals.


###### Bekhorot 57a:17
[Bekhorot 57a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/57a:17)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַכֹּל נִכְנָסִין לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר, חוּץ מִן הַכִּלְאַיִם וְהַטְּרֵפָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אִישׁ כְּפַר בַּרְתּוֹתָא שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: אֲנִי שָׁמַעְתִּי הֵימֶנּוּ אַף יוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן וּמְחוּסַּר זְמַן וְיָתוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **All** animals **enter the pen to be tithed except for** an animal crossbred **from diverse kinds,** e.g., a hybrid of a goat and a sheep, **and a *tereifa*;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yehuda, of the village of Bartota, who said** it **in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Akiva said: I heard from** Rabbi Yehoshua **that** an animal **born by caesarean section and** an animal **whose time has not yet** arrived, i.e., that is less than eight days old, **and an orphan** animal, are **also** excluded from animal tithe.


###### Bekhorot 57a:18
[Bekhorot 57a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/57a:18)

וְתַנָּא קַמָּא, אִי גָּמַר ״תַּחַת״ ״תַּחַת״ מִקֳּדָשִׁים — הָנֵי נָמֵי לָא, וְאִי לָא גָּמַר, בִּשְׁלָמָא טְרֵפָה — ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט״ כְּתִיב, פְּרָט לִטְרֵפָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עוֹבֶרֶת, אֶלָּא כִּלְאַיִם מְנָא לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And the first *tanna* of** the *baraita*, what does he maintain? **If he derives** the verbal analogy of **“under”** and **“under” from sacrificial** animals, then **these** categories listed by Rabbi Akiva should **also not** enter the pen to be tithed. **And if he does not derive** the verbal analogy, **granted,** he rules that **a *tereifa*** does not enter the pen to be tithed, as **it is written: “Whatever passes under the rod”** (Leviticus 27:32), which **excludes a *tereifa*, as it does not pass** under the rod due to its physical state. **But from where** does he derive that an animal crossbred **from diverse kinds** does not enter the pen to be tithed?


###### Bekhorot 57a:19
[Bekhorot 57a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/57a:19)

לְעוֹלָם גָּמַר, וּבְיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually, he does derive** the verbal analogy of “under” and “under,” and therefore he excludes a *tereifa* and diverse kinds from the animal tithe. **But** with regard to an animal **born by caesarean section**