Talmud Illuminated

Arachin 16 – What To Do About Bad Talk?

2012-01-28T22:33:00.001-08:00

About the one who talks badly of his fellow, God says, “He who slanders his neighbor in secret... him I cannot bear.” What's the correction? If he is a scholar, he should learn Torah and books on self-improvement, and if he can't learn, he should become humble. Rav Acha said, “There is no correction for bad things that were already said. This advice is for one who wants to protect himself from speaking badly.”

Bad speech kills three: the speaker, the listener, and the one they talk about. The garment of the High Priest had bells, and they atoned for bad talk – but only if it had not lead to quarrels.

One should reprove his friend for bad deeds, but only if the friend is righteous and will listen; however, Rabbi Tarfon said that in his generation nobody accepted rebuke, and in the next one nobody could rebuke properly. Assuming that the generations go down, this is all the more true today.

Suffering is helpful spiritually, what is the minimal amount? When newly made clothing does not fit, but some say when one puts a shirt inside out, and some – when one wants to take out three coins and takes out only two. However, if he took out three coins and needs to put one back – it is not suffering.

Art: Herman Frederik Carel ten Kate - A Humble Question

Arachin 15 – How Bad is Bad Talk?

2012-01-27T11:56:00.000-08:00

In the laws of a violator and seducer there are also elements of leniency and stringency. Whether one seduced or violated the daughter of the most prominent family of Kohanim or the lowest family of Israel, he pays fifty shekels. By contrast, the payments for humiliation depends on who humiliated and who was humiliated.

One who defames his new wife may face a leniency and a stringency: whether he defamed the most prominent maiden in the priesthood or the humblest maiden among the Jewish people, he pays a hundred shekels.

We thus see that one who speaks evil with his mouth is worse than one who performs an evil deed. Similary, the decree that the Jews should not enter Israel and stay in the desert for another forty years was sealed on account of the bad words they said about the Land of Israel. The Torah said, “They tested Me these (literally, this) ten times”, and the word “this” tells that these bad words were the reason. If one is punished so for talking about land and rocks, then now much more when talking about his fellow.

Art: Jean-Baptiste Madou - The Gossips

Arachin 14 – Leniencies and Stringencies

2012-01-26T19:30:00.000-08:00

Since symbolic valuation of a person is expressed in fixed currency, this can sometimes result in a leniency and sometimes in a stringency. Thus, whether one vowed to donate the symbolic value of the handsomest man in Israel or of the ugliest man in Israel, he gives fifty selah coins for a male between twenty and sixty years old.

Consecration of ancestral fields may likewise result in a leniency or in a stringency: whether he consecrates land on the perimeter of a city (the worst), or in the vineyards of Sebaste (the best), when he redeems it, he gives fifty silver shekels for an area on which a measure of barley can be sown .

This requires explanation. Ancestral fields are fields inherited from the original division of the Land of Israel between the tribes, or fields sold by the Temple treasury. What measure of barley? - Chomer (same as kor, about 10 cubic feet), and this much barley was enough to sow the area of about five acres. This is the area one would redeem for 50 silver shekels. If the land market value was higher, he got a leniency, if lower – a stringency.

Art: Sir Godfrey Kneller - Portrait of a young Man

Arachin 13 – No Less, But Maybe More

2012-01-25T21:42:00.000-08:00

According to the final account, the Second Temple was destroyed in the first year after shmitah. This gives a starting point for counting the shmitah years today; however, there are still two views on how to count the first year of creation – from the creation of Adam, or from the first day of creation, counting the first six days as a full year. The second view is the accepted one, with the result that the next shmitah is in 2014-15.

There were no fewer than six inspected lambs, sufficient for Shabbat and the two days of Rosh HaShanah, but they could add without a limit. But was six lambs enough for three days, seeing that there are additional offerings on these day!? – Six is not precise, just a reminder to keep enough.

There were no less than two trumpets, but up to 120, no less than nine harps, and only one set of cymbals.

Young Levites boys did not play musical instruments, nor stood on the platform, but only sang standing on the floor of the Temple, and they were called assistants of the Levites, but some say, tormentors, because adult ones could never sing as sweet.

Art: Sir Henry Raeburn - The Marchioness of Northampton, Playing a Harp

Arachin 12 – Bad Things Happen on a Bad Day

2012-01-24T21:23:00.000-08:00

Is the Levites's singing required for libations in the Temple? Since libations include wine, and the Levites started singing when wine was poured on the Altar, maybe it is required; on the other hand, since there is no meat with libations, maybe it is not required?

Let us try to find an answer in the story of the Temples' Destruction, as related by Rabbi Yose: “Good things are brought about on an auspicious day, and bad things – on a bad day. It was the first day of the week and the first year after Shmittah, and the Levites were singing 'God turned their violence against them', and just as they concluded with 'God our Lord will cut them off' the enemies came and vanquished them; and so it was at the destruction of the Second Temple.”

Now, why were they singing? The daily sacrifice stopped a while back, so it must have been the libations, which proves that libations require singing. – Not necessarily, maybe they chanced upon a calf. Furthermore, as Rava said, it would be the wrong song for Sunday anyway, and it just happened that they started singing a dirge, for Resh Lakish said that Temple song can be performed without a sacrifice. But if so, let them sing for libations! – No, if we allow singing for a sacrifice that does not require singing, they may eventually skip singing when it is requried.

Art: Jan Jozef, the Younger Horemans - Lesson of Singing

Arachin 11 – Who Played Flutes in the Temple?

2012-01-23T21:57:00.000-08:00

Rabbi Meir's opinion is that it was the slaves of the Kohanim who played flutes in the Temple, Rabbi Yose says that they were from a family of regular Jews, Israelim, but of especially pure lineage, and Rabbi Chanina says that it was the Levites. What is the logic of their disagreement?

Rabbi Meir holds that the essential music of the Temple is vocal, and instrumental music was only for accompaniment, so anybody could play flutes, while Rabbi Chanina holds that the essence of music is instrumental, and thus flutes had to be played by the Levites, the official Temple musicians.

However, this does not explain Rabbi Yose, who holds an in-between position. We have to take it back: everybody believes that the essence of Temple music is singing, and their argument is about something else: does the court assume that once someone was seen playing music in the Temple, he is automatically considered to be Levy and fit to receive the tithe. Rabbi Meir says that the court makes no such assumption, therefore even slaves can play – nobody will make them Levites because of that, and Rabbi Chanina says that music playing is evidence that he is a Levite.

Art: Judith Leyster- Young Flute Player

Arachin 10 – Music in the Temple

2012-01-22T17:40:00.000-08:00

Every day they would blow trumpets in the Temple, no less than twenty-one notes, but no more than forty-eight. The Torah said, “On the days of your joy... sound the trumpets!” Trumpets accompanied opening the gates, then nine sounds came with the morning daily sacrifice, and another nine with the afternoon one. Music started when wine libations began pouring. The forty-eight notes occurred when New Moon was celebrated on a Friday: nine notes were added because of additional offering, nine sounds told people to stop working in the fields, and twelve more notes were sounded if it was also Succot.

No less than two lutes accompanied singing (some say they were bagpipes, violins, or even percussion instruments), and no more than six – for sound balance. A minimal Temple orchestra to included nine harps, two instruments discussed above, and two cymbals.

Flutes numbered no less than two and no more than twelve. Flutes were played whenever praise (Hallel) was sung. They were not made from copper but from reeds, or bamboo, because of sweeter sound. At music’s ending, only one flute played, and some say, flutes alone played, because it makes a pleasant ending.

Art: Anthonie Palamedesz - An Officer Blowing a Trumpet

Arachin 9 – No More, No Less

2012-01-21T18:52:00.000-08:00

They never made less than four thirty-day months in a year, and never more more than eight twenty-nine-day months. The lunar month is about 29 ½ days, so some months have to be short, and some long. In the time of this ruling, beginning of a new month was declared based on the testimony of witnesses who saw the new moon. The Sages would also move the first day of the month slightly, for calendar purposes, but kept it within the above guidelines, so that Rosh Hashanah would never be too far off from New Moon.

The two loaves of Shavuot are not baked on the holiday itself, so they were eaten at least two days after they were baked, but no more than three days – when Shabbat intervened.

The bread of vision was baked before Shabbat, stayed on the Table in the Temple for the week, and was then eaten the following Shabbat – while still fresh and warm. Thus, they were eaten no less than nine days after baking, but no more than eleven – when two days of Rosh HaShana intervened.

A healthy child is circumcised not fewer than eight days after birth, but no later then eleven – when Shabbat and Rosh HaShana intervened.

Art: Rembrandt Van Rijn - Circumcision

Arachin 8 – Minimum and Maximum Amounts for Personal Valuations

2012-01-20T09:39:00.000-08:00

One who vowed to give his own or someone else's symbolic value to the Temple pays according to the schedule given by the Torah, but if he is poor, a Kohen can reduce his payment. However, it is never less than a selah (shekel), since the Torah said, “And every valuation shall be in a sacred shekel.” Incidentally, it cannot exceed 50 shekels, the upper limit given by the Torah.

If one was poor, paid his selah, and then became rich, he does not have to pay the remainder, since he already fulfilled his obligation. However, if while being poor he paid less than a selah, it does not count, and now that he became rich, he has to pay the full amount.

On the subject of minimum and maximum, a woman who confused her menstrual cycle according to the Torah law, never has to compensate less than seven days and never more than seventeen. Due to the complexity of these laws, a custom arose to observe standard, although pretty long, separation time periods.

One who has spiritual leprosy – which was normally caused by defamatory comments – is confined for no less than a week but no more than three weeks.

Art: Louis Gallait - Monk Feeding the Poor

Arachin 7 – No Death Row

2012-01-19T16:58:00.000-08:00

Rabbi Yose disagrees about a condemned being led to execution and says that he can promise the valuation others. But who does he disagree with? Rabbi Yose concealed his message; he meant: if one led to execution harms someone, the Sages declare him liable, while Rabbi Yose says that he does not have to pay. They argue whether his heirs have to pay for him. Alternatively, since the obligations of a damager are written in the Torah, they argue whether this has the power of a court decision.

One condemned by the court is executed immediately, to spare the anguish of waiting. If a pregnant woman is condemned, they don't wait until she gives birth; however, if the baby moved as a beginning of birth, it became a separate person, and then they wait until she gives birth. A dead body is prohibited for benefit, but they may use a woman's hair.

But the hair also should be forbidden! - She said, “Give my hair to my daughter.” Why would we listen? - It's a wig tied to her hair. With her words, she revealed that she does not consider it part of her body, and this permits to remove the hair later.

Art: Vladimir Egorovic Makovsky - The Condemned

Arachin 6 - Money for Charity

2012-01-18T18:39:00.001-08:00

If an idolater separated a Kohen’s portion (terumah) from his grain, saying “I wanted to do what Jews do” - this is a valid. However, if he said nothing, then perhaps he meant for the Temple, and since there is no Temple, it has to be hidden. In general, any “consecration for the Temple” today creates a similar problem.

Money designated for charity is similar to a vow: just as a vow has to be fulfilled in its due time, so charity has to be paid; if the time was not specified, it means right away. However, it is not similar to Temple consecration: one can use designated coins, and then repay. One who collects charity - money or objects -from people should be careful to use it according to their designation, unless he knows that they would not mind if he uses it for a different good cause.

One who is in the throes of death and one who is going out to be executed by court cannot be a subject of any monetary vow. But the condemned should at least have a symbolic value!? - Since there is not redemption for a murderer, by analogy there is none for the condemned one.

Art: Camille Pissarro - Charity

Arachin 5 -- Personal Valuation of an Infant and of an Idolater

2012-01-17T21:06:00.000-08:00

When the Torah assigned symbolic values of people to be donated to the Temple, it started from one month old. What happens when one promises to donate the symbolic value of a child before one month? Rabbi Meir says that people never make vain statements in serious matters, therefore, since he knows that there is no value assigned to the baby, he means to donate its value in the slave market. The Sages say that people do make vain statements, and thus this person is treated as one who said nothing.

An idolater can make regular monetary vows and be a subject of the vows of others. Although idolater’s symbolic value for the Temple was not listed, Rabbi Meir says that he is nevertheless included, while Rabbi Yehudah says that he can donate other people’s symbolic value but not his own. The Torah uses both an inclusive “a man” and exclusive “Children of Israel,” but Rabbi Meir says that it is more common to be a recipient of a symbolic valuation vow, while Rabbi Yehudah argues that it is more common to be a giver.

Pierre Auguste Renoir - Portrait Of An Infant

Arachin 4 -- All: Kohanim, Levites, Israelim, Who Else?

2012-01-16T18:45:00.000-08:00

When a ruling is formulated as “All are obligated in a certain commandment, Kohahim, Levites, and Israelim (regular Jews),” the word “all” is not superfluous, but in each case it adds something.

ALL are obligated to hear the Megillah - adds those who are occupied with the Temple service; even they should leave the service and listen to the Megillah.

ALL can declare a symbolic personal value donation, according to one’s age and gender, as prescribed by the Torah, Kohanim, Levites, and Israelim. But that is obvious! If not these, then who? Rabbah says that this is a hidden answer to Ben Buchri, who explained that Kohanim never pay a shekel-donation (even though the Sages disagree). One might therefore think the same about personal valuation, and this had to be negated. Abaye argues that there is no connection, rather, it is an answer to a possible idea that since the Kohanim do not redeem their firstborn, perhaps they can’t do symbolic valuations either. Rava denies that connection also and says that ALL excludes the possibility that perhaps one Kohen cannot assign the discounted valuation that another, poor Kohen, has to give - and the answer is that he can!

Art: Giorgione (Giorgio da Castelfranco Veneto) - The Three Ages

Arachin 3 - What Does the Word “All” Add?

2012-01-16T07:09:00.001-08:00

The word “all” was used to introduce the valuation rule above, and usually “all” tells us something in addition to the list. Talmud goes on a whirlwind tour of about fifty cases of the use of the word “all,” discussing what it adds. Firstly, valuations: ALL can declare a valuation vow - adds minors a year prior to bat or bar mitzvah, who clearly understand vows. ALL can be the subject of a valuation vow - including an ugly person, or one with skin boils, whose value on the slave market is zero.

ALL lean on a sacrifice declaring the reason for bringing it - ALL adds the son who inherits the sacrifice from his father.

One may force ALL the members of his household to move to Israel. This ruling reflects the opinion that living in Israel is a commandment, based on the Torah phrase, “Clear out the land and live in it.” ALL adds one who would have to give up a beautiful dwelling outside Israel and move to inferior quarters in Israel. Other cases of the use of the word "all" include sukkah, lulav, tzitzit, teffilin, Temple visits, shofar, megillah, impurity discharge, spiritual leprosy, and kosher slaughter of animals.

Art: Rembrandt Van Rijn - Family Group

Arachin 2 -- Personal Valuations to the Temple

2012-01-15T09:15:00.001-08:00

One can make a personal valuation vow to the Temple, promising to donate his own or someone else’s value. Furthermore, one can promise either a monetary value - the price that this person could fetch in a slave market - or a symbolic value, expressed in shekel coins, in the amount prescribed by the Torah.

All persons can both declare such a vow and be the subject of it, a man or a woman, Kohen, Levi, or a regular Jew. An androgyne or a person of undetermined gender can do all of the above, except for a symbolic value. Since Torah-assigned values are provided only for definite males or females, these two do not have a specific symbolic values that can be donate for them. Thus, if one makes a “personal valuation” vow related to them, it is always treated as a monetary value they would fetch in a slave market.

A deaf, deranged, or a minor can have their value donated by others, but they themselves cannot make such vows. Since they lack sufficient understanding, they are considered legally incompetent.

Art: Jozef Israels - Three Women Knitting By The Sea

Bechorot 61 – One's Agent Should Only Help

2012-01-14T22:30:00.001-08:00

We learned that if ninth or eleventh animals are mistakenly called “tenth,” they become sanctified. However, this is only true when one tithes himself. If someone sent an agent to tithe his flock, and the agent miscounted, calling the ninth or the eleventh animal “tenth”, then the ninth is indeed sanctified, but the eleventh is not – these are the words of Rav Pappi. Rav Pappa disagrees and says that neither the ninth nor the eleventh become sanctified, because the owner can tell the agent, “I sent you to benefit me, not to harm me, therefore your agency is void.” And Rav Pappi? He says that when the agent called the ninth animal “tenth”, his agency was still in power, he only lost it after this action, and tithe sanctified in error still counts.

But how is this different from one who sends an agent to separate the kohen's portion (terumah) from his grain? There, even if the agent miscalculated the generosity of the owner and gave 10% more, or 10% less, his actions stand? -- For kohen's portion, there are indeed people who give generously or stingily, but for animal tithe the owner can say, “You should not have erred.”

Art: Joseph Augustus Knip - A Flock Of Sheep In A Stable

Bechorot 60 – Mistakes in Counting

2012-01-13T10:25:00.001-08:00

If one was counting his animal tithe, and two animals squeezed out through the narrow opening together, he should count them as two. If he counted them as one, then his ninth and tenth animals are messed up: they are both holy to some degree, but not as a complete tithe; therefore, they both need to be allowed to graze until they develop a blemish, and then they can be slaughtered.

If he pronounced the ninth animal to emerge from the pen “tenth”, then, realizing his mistake, tried to correct it, calling the tenth animal “ninth”, and then continued counting and called the eleventh animal “tenth”, the ninth is eaten if it gets a blemish, the tenth is the real tithe, and the eleventh is brought as a peace offering. Why ?

Calling the ninth animal “tenth” gave it a degree of holiness, and it can't be slaughtered until it develops a blemish. The owner made a mistake calling the tenth “ninth,” but it become tithe through his intent. And, since the word "tenth" was never properly applied, it kept its power and made the eleventh animal a Temple sacrifice. Ninth and eleventh are sanctified because of an extra word "it will be" holy.

Art: Anton Mauve - Bringing Home The Flock

Bechorot 59 – Tithing Procedure

2012-01-12T06:30:00.001-08:00

To tithe, one gathers his animals into a pen, and makes a small opening for them, so that two animals can't exit at once. He counts them with a staff: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and the one that exits tenth he marks with red dye, and pronounces, “This one is hereby tithe.”

If he did not mark the tenth one with red dye, did not count them with a staff, or did not pass them through a narrow exit, but counted them as they were crouching or standing, they are still tithed, since the Torah said, “And the tenth one will be holy” – even when the correct procedure is not followed. However, if he just ten out of a hundred or one out of ten, without counting all – it is not tithe, because the Torah said “tenth”, but not “ten”. Rabbi Yose ben Yehudah says that it is tithed even in that case, since the Torah said, “It will be considered to you as tithe” - a mental consideration is sufficient.

If a counted animal jumped back, all are exempt, but if the tithe animal jumped back, all have the stringency of tithe.

Art: Ary Johannes Lamme - Paying The Tithe

Bechorot 58 – Three Dates for Animal Tithes

2012-01-11T08:35:00.001-08:00

There are three dates designated for animals tithes: fifteen days before the holidays of Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot. Thirty days before a holiday one starts reviewing its laws, and these dates were in the middle. After the designated date, the animals are considered “untithed.” Although there are opinions that the tithing calendar is somewhat different, all agree that these dates were established by the earlier Sages in order that enough animals were available for those going to Jerusalem and bringing sacrifices on the holidays.

What is the New Year for animal tithe? Rabbi Meir says that it is the first of Elul, a month before the Rosh HaShana of the first of the month of Tishrei, but Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon both say that it is the same as Rosh HaShana. They argue about when the majority of births occur. The practical importance of this day is that only animals born in the same year combine for the count of ten needed to create the tithe obligation. Ben Azzai says that the New Year for tithe is a very old disagreement which cannot be properly resolved, and therefore animals born in Elul form a separate tithing queue.

Art: Theophile Louis Deyrolle - A Shepherdess and her Flock

Bechorot 57 – Who is Obligated in Animal Tithe

2012-01-10T21:34:00.001-08:00

When a father dies and brother become heirs to his estate – but until the time that they divide it – they are obligated to give the tithe, because the estate is the real owner. Once they divide it, if they continue to operate it together as partners, they are not obligated to tithe, since no partners are obligated. Incidentally, the law of the “kolbon”, a small coin given in addition to the half-shekel to the Temple, is just the opposite.

Earlier we said that there are multiple cases when one does not have to give animal tithe. In fact, it is the presence of them that allowed the Sages to suspend the separation of tithes altogether, in the time when there is no Temple. Thus, all animals are obligated in tithes, except for a hybrid, a sick animal (terefah), one born by Caesarean section, and an orphan. What is considered an orphan for tithes? Any animal whose mother died or was slaughtered, and then it (the child) came out of the mother's womb. Rabbi Yehoshua says that if the mother's hide is intact, its offspring is not an orphan, because wrapping it in its mother's hide helps.

Art: George Cochran Lambdin - The Little White Heifer

Bechorot 56 – Tithes for Animals Bought or Exchanged for Services

2012-01-10T06:16:00.001-08:00

If one buys untithed animals or receives them as a gift, he does not have to tithe them. The Torah compared tithes to a firstborn son, and just as children are born into a family and not acquired, so too only animals born in one's herd are tithed. Rabbi Yochanan said: "If one buys ten fetuses in the wombs of their mothers, they will be subject to tithes." Why? Rabbi Elazar said “I saw Rabbi Yochanan in a dream, so my explanation today must be correct.” The Torah said, “So shall you do (tithe)” to exclude animals acquired though an additional act of buying.

When is an animal given to a harlot as payment tithed? – When he buys it back. But the sale removes the animal from tithes!? – He gave and re-purchased a fetus. But let the harlot tithe the animal herself!? – She is a Cuthean harlot who, not being Jewish, does not have to tithe. But why not teach us a case of a Jewish harlot? - Only a harlot whom he cannot marry has her payment forbidden, but if marriage could take effect, her payment can be brought as tithe in the Temple.

Art: Jusepe de Ribera - Jacob's Dream

Bechorot 55 – Jordan and Other Rivers

2012-01-09T20:17:00.001-08:00

Rabbi Meir said that the animals on two sides of the Jordan river are not counted together for giving tithes. Rav Ashi noted that if there is a bridge there, they do combine. But, by the same token, animals on two sides of the Israeli border should combine, because they can cross – and we know that they don't! Rather, as Rav Chiya explained, Jordan is called a border by the Torah. But then animals on different sides of the tribes' borders should not combined, and they do!? Rav Chiya has to say that the “land” combines all tribes, but “Jordan” is not land.

Jordan is called that way because it is “yored mi-dan” - comes from Dan. Its source is the cave of Pameas. Why does it matter? – One who vows not to drink water of Pameas should not drink any Jordan water. Jordan's source – as is the source of all water in the world – is the river Euphrates. Why does that matter? For one who vows against the water of Euphrates. But we judge by common meaning, and that includes only Euphrates' water?! - Rather, if he vows against all water that comes from Euphrates.

But how can all water come from Euphrates seeing that there are springs in the high mountains? – They are fed by underground channels. And why is it called Euphrates? Because its waters multiply (“parim” in Hebrew). This teaching supports Shmuel, who said that a river is primarily fed from its bedrock, and disagrees with the father of Shmuel, who would build a separate mikvah for his daughter in Euphrates, because he felt that its water comes at times mostly from rain.

Art: John Robert Keitley Duff - Highland Bridge with Shepherd and Flock

Bechorot 54 – Animal Title by Species and by Year

2012-01-08T22:02:00.001-08:00

Although animal tithe applies both for cattle and to flocks, it cannot be taken from one on the other; rather, the calves are counted by themselves. However, the sheep and goats are combined, because they are collectively designated by the Torah as “flocks”. Furthermore, even though the tithe applies to animals of the last year (if the farmer did not give it yet) as well as of this year, the two years are not combined. Logically, one could reason otherwise and say, “If the animals born in different years, who are not forbidden to be bred between themselves, do not combine for tithe, then sheep and goats, who are forbidden to be bred between themselves, certainly should not combine!” To preclude this, the Torah combined them them as “flocks”.

Animals that are spread out are still considered as one flock and are combined for tithe if they are within the same grazing range, that is, about 4,000 feet from each other. If two groups of animals are farther away than that, but there is a group of animals in between them, it serves to combine them. Rabbi Meir says, “Jordan River separates the animals.”

Art: Julien Dupre - A Shepherd And His Flock

Bechorot 53 – Animal Tithe Today

2012-01-06T07:01:00.001-08:00

When one has ten or more sheep, goats, or cows born in his flock in a particular year, he has to give animal tithe. He gathers the animals in a pen and lets them out one by one, through a narrow opening. He counts, and marks every tenth one with red dye, saying, “This one is animal tithe.” The tithe animals are brought as sacrifices in the Temple, and are eaten by the owner and his guests in Jerusalem. When there is no Temple, the owner waits till the animals get a blemish, and then he can slaughter them. This is also true for animals born outside of Israel, except that their tithe is not brought to Jerusalem.

Today, however, animal tithes would be problematic, because of multiple prohibitions associated with them. As Rav Huna had described, the farmers used to place the animals' mothers outside the pen, with the result that orphaned and bought animals – from whom tithe need not be separated – would remain inside. The Sages thus instituted not to separate tithes at all, based on the multiple similar situations where the animal tithe would not apply, and about which general population might have been ignorant.

Art: Albertus Verhoesen - A Summer Landscape With Cows And Sheep By A Pool And A Milkmaid Watching

Bechorot 52 – Firstborn Gets Double

2012-01-05T21:58:00.001-08:00

Firstborn son gets a double portion in the inheritance from his father's estate, but not from his mother's. The Torah said, “to him applies the law of the firstborn.” Even though it is talking here about him, the son, it also hints that this law applies only to “him”, the father, and not to “her”, the mother.

If some time passed between the death of the father and the division of the estate, and the property has meanwhile improved (fruit grew on trees), the firstborn does not get a double share in those improvements, but only a regular one, like the rest of the sons. Of course, when he gets the double share of the land, it may happen that together with it he will double share of the improvements, but he will have compensate his brother for them. The Torah said that he gets double from “all that is found in his father possession” to tell us that he does not get from what comes to the estate later, after death. He also does not get a double portion from the money owed to his father but uncollected at the time of death.

Art: Bartolome Esteban Murillo - The Prodigal Son Receiving His Portion Of Inheritance

Bechorot 51 – Firstborn Redemption with Real Estate

2012-01-04T09:11:00.000-08:00

To redeem a firstborn one can give to a Kohen either five shekel coins or goods worth that amount. However, lands, slaves, and loan documents cannot be used for redemption. Why not? When the Torah said, “A firstborn is redeemed from one month old”, it included all means of payment. When it continued, “According to the valuation of five shekels of silver”, it limited the available means somewhat, and when it again generalized, “You shall redeem”, we interpret it to mean that only payments similar to the specified ones are included. Just as coins are movable and have intrinsic value, so too all similar items are included. What's excluded? Lands, because they are not movable. Slaves, because they have the laws of the land. Loan documents, because they are pieces of paper not worth anything by themselves, but only because of the obligation recorded in them.

If the father wrote the Kohen a note which said “I owe you five shekels”, he has created the obligation and needs to pay at. However, this does not redeem his son, so he needs to pay another five shekels. If the Kohen wants, he can return five shekels as a present.

Art: Jan Steen- A woman counting coins at a table

Bechorot 50 – Shekel, Selah, and Other Currencies

2012-01-04T05:59:00.000-08:00

The amount given to a Kohen to redeem the firstborn son is “five shekels by the sanctuary standard, where the shekel is 20 gerah.” In the times of the Second Temple the names of the coins changed. Since a common payment was a half-shekel, donated yearly by each Jew to the Temple for atonement sacrifices, this half-shekel was called a "shekel," and the full shekel was instead called a "selah". That is why our ruling was formulated in terms of "shekel by the sanctuary standard," and not just a "shekel."

The same “shekel of the sanctuary standard” was used for other payments prescribed by the Torah: the fifty-shekel payment of the rapist and of the seducer of a virgin young girl, and a one hundred-shekel payment of the defamer of his new bride.

These payments can be made with money or with goods, except for the half-shekel collected yearly for sacrifices. They are paid in Tyrian mintage, which was pure silver and eight times more valuable than the “provincial” coins used, for example, for a two hundred-zuz payment of a Ketubah given in the case of divorce. A sanctuary shekel is .8 oz. silver.

Art: Auguste Charpentier

Bechorot 49 – Cases of Firstborn Mix-ups and Deaths

2012-01-02T21:03:00.001-08:00

If the firstborn son died within thirty days, even if the father had already given the redemption money to a Kohen, the Kohen must return it, because it was given early on the expectation that they child was viable and would survive. If the son died after thirty days, the father must still give the money. If the son died on the thirtieth day, this is a proof that it was not viable, and the Kohen returns the money. Rabbi Akiva is not certain if it is a proof, so if the Kohen got the money, he need not return it, but the father need not give it now.

If a man had two firstborn sons from two wives, and he redeemed the two boys with ten coins, and then one of the boys died, then if he gave all ten coins to one Kohen, the Kohen returns five coins. However, if he gave it to two different Kohanim, then he cannot get his money back, because each Kohen can say that perhaps he got the money for the son that is alive, and it is the other Kohen who got the money for the one who died.

Art: George Frederic Watts - Death Crowning Innocence

Bechorot 48 – Firstborn Both for Inheritance and the Kohen

2012-01-02T07:36:00.001-08:00

One who is a firstborn both for his father and his mother is an obvious case that need not be mentioned. Rather, the first case of this ruling is when a woman has a miscarriage, but an embryo is so undeveloped that it looks full of water or multicolored matter, like a fish or a crawling animal, or if she aborts it on the fortieth day after conception – all these are not considered births, and the next child is a firstborn both for inheritance and for the Kohen.

A firstborns son born by Cesarean section and the naturally born that follows him – neither is a firstborn for either inheritance – because the Torah said “And they bore him sons,” and Caesarean is not a classical birth, or the Kohen – because the child needs be both the first and to open the womb. Rabbi Shimon considers the first one firstborn for inheritance, because in his opinion the Caesarean section is legally included in giving birth. He also regards the second one a firstborn for giving the Kohen five silver coins, because he considers either of the two conditions – first birth or first to open a womb – sufficient.

Art: Nicholas Gysis - New Arrival

Bechorot 47 – How Does One Recognize a Face?

2012-01-01T10:46:00.001-08:00

Once a child shows its forehead from its mother's womb, it is considered born; at this moment the lives of the baby and of its mother become equal. However – said Resh Lakish – for the purposes of firstborn inheritance, it is not considered born until his face appears. If he retracts his head and another child appears, the other child will be the firstborn. That is because the word “recognize” is used talking about the firstborn, and for that the complete face must be seen. Rabbi Yochanan says that even here the forehead is enough. Resh Lakish poses multiple questions to Rabbi Yochanan, which the latter answers by emending the rulings. Finally, he answers that perhaps recognizing a firstborn by the forehead is possible while in other situations a full face is needed.

If a woman did not wait for the prescribed three months before remarrying, and her firstborn child does not know the true father, he is the firstborn for the Kohen but not for inheritance. But then he should not get any inheritance, since he can't prove paternity! He should sue the other children jointly with the next son, claiming that between them one is a firstborn.

Art: Franz Cusaude - The Gosnall Twins

Bechorot 46 – Firstborn For Inheritance But Not for Kohen

2011-12-30T08:51:00.001-08:00

Some blemishes apply only to animals but do not prevent a Kohen from serving in the Temple: if a calf mother was sacrificed that day, one cannot bring her offspring, but a Kohen and his son can serve on the same day; an animal that is terefah (sick and therefore not kosher), one delivered by Caesarean section, and one with whom bestiality was committed – all cannot be brought as sacrifices, but these situation do not disqualify a Kohen. A Kohen married to a woman prohibited to him cannot serve until he vows to divorce, and likewise one who visits cemeteries.

A child can be a firstborn for inheritance but not a firstborn for a Kohen – that is, he does not need to be redeemed by giving five silver coins to a Kohen. How so? If a woman was pregnant with twins, and the head of one emerged first, but then retracted and he died, and the second child was born healthy. The firstborn for a Kohen is the one who “opened the womb of his mother,” and that was the first child. The firstborn for inheritance is the first viable child, and that is the second one.

Art: Salomon de Bray - The Twins Clara and Aelbert de Bray

Bechorot 45 – Blemishes of Legs and Hands of a Kohen

2011-12-30T07:02:00.001-08:00

Some of the foot blemishes include: if he puts his feet together while sitting down and cannot bring his knees together, if his feet are broad and flat like those of a goose, if his toes are joined together – however if they are joined only from the foot until the middle join, he is fit.

One who has extra digits in his hands and feet, that is, six on each – Rabbi Yehudah declares him fit, but the Sages say that he is unfit. They argue about a phrase in Samuel, “There was another war, and there was a man of huge stature, with six fingers on his hands and feet.” The Sages consider these words a shame, but Rabbi Yehudah considers them a praise.

A left-handed Kohen cannot serve in the Temple because he lacks a legally recognized right hand, and many services require it. An ambidexterous Kohen – Rabbi Yehudah the Prince assumes that this is due to the weakness in the right hand, which makes it a blemish, but the Sages say that it is his left hand that grew unusually strong, thus, he is fit.

Art: Pietro Longhi - The Giant Magrat

Bechorot 44 – Three Groups of Blemishes in a Kohen

2011-12-28T21:02:00.001-08:00

We saw that a Kohen may be disqualified because of a full-fledged blemish described in the Torah, or because of some lighter irregularity that makes him look different from a typical descendant of Aharon. What is the practical difference between the two? Both types cannot serve in the Temple and are liable to lashes if they do, but only the first one makes the actual service invalid.

There is also a third group of disqualifications, called “unsightly appearance,” such as one with a sunken nose or whose lashes have fallen out. If such a Kohen serves in the Temple, he merely transgresses a commandment derived by implication, for which there is no punishment.

Further blemishes, some more strict, some less, and some added by the Sages, include an eye as large a calf's eye, or as small as that of a goose, a body too large for the limbs, or the limbs too large for the body, ears too small, an upper lip protruding beyond the lower one, and teeth that have fallen out – the last one because of unsightly appearance. Also included are abnormally bulging breasts and belly.

There are 50 blemishes shared with animals and 90 unique to Kohanim.

Art: Cuyp Jacob Gerritsz - Boy with a Goose

Bechorot 43 – Blemished that Disqualify a Kohen

2011-12-27T22:17:00.001-08:00

All blemishes that disqualify a firstborn animal from being a sacrifice also disqualify a Kohen from serving in the Temple. Moreover, there are blemishes for animals that are not listed for Kohanim, and vice versa, but in truth all blemishes listed for one apply to the other. This is learned from the use of an extra word “wart” that is found in both laws and that connects them. Without this connection, we could argue that an animal's law should be stricter, since it itself is brought on the Altar, or alternatively that the Kohen's law is stricter, since he can perform many Temple services.

Unique to Kohanim is a requirement to be a typical descendant of Aharon. Thus it becomes a blemish to have a deformed head, and a hunchback, although Rabbi Yehudah declares a hunchback fit for Temple service. A bald-headed man is unfit. What is defined as bald? Whoever has no ring of hair circling from ear to ear.

A disqualified Kohen may still eat of the Kohanim's portions, and he has a claim to an equal share, together with all the members of his family, when the family gets its turn to serve in the Temple.

Art: John Constable - Portrait of a Balding Man

Bechorot 42 – Undefined Gender, According to Rav Chisda

2011-12-27T07:10:00.001-08:00

Rav Chisda said, “Even if an androgyne (a being with both male and female genitals) is to be considered a separate gender, but a being of undefined gender (genitals covered by skin) is definitely either a male or a female, except that we don't know which. A practical consequence of this viewpoint is that a firstborn animal of undefined gender is to be treated as a potential firstborn male, not to be worked, and not to be slaughtered until it develops a blemish. Talmud is now going to challenge this.

One can donate a personal valuation to the Temple (subject of the next Tractate), which is defined only for a definite male or a female, but not an androgyne and not an undefined gender. But God knows about every being of undefined gender what it really is, so why did the Torah have to exclude it?! Rav Chisda will answer, “The text of the rule is incorrect, it should not include undefined gender.” Several more challenges will be deflected in a similar way, and it will turn out that the disagreement dates back to much earlier times, with both points of view being equally valid.

Art: David The Younger Teniers - Domestic Worker Holding a Broom

Bechorot 41 – Blemishes Not Severe Enough

2011-12-25T19:53:00.001-08:00

Certain blemishes of a firstborn male animal are enough to disqualify it from a sacrifice, but are not severe enough to allow to slaughter it outside the Temple. Their owner is left with no alternative but to wait, either until the animal develops a full-fledged blemish, or until the disqualifying condition leaves. These are: white flecks or water in the eye that are not permanent; back gums that were notched but not uprooted; an animal that has a wart or a boil, one that is old, sick, or foul-smelling; an animal which was a passive or active participant in bestiality; one that killed a person, but according to the testimony of only one witness – which prevents it from being a sacrifice but does not allow the court to execute it.

An animal whose genitals are covered with skin so that its gender it unclear, or one with both sets of genitals cannot be slaughtered anywhere, because that is another not-so-severe blemish. Rabbi Ismael considers the second set of genitals a blemish which permits to slaughter the animal. Another opinion considers such an animal a separate species to whom the laws of firstborn don't apply at all.

Art: Richard Ansdell - The Sick Lamb

Bechorot 40 – Blemishes of the Tail, Testicles, and Feet

2011-12-24T20:16:00.001-08:00

Further blemishes: the sheath (skin pocket) of the male member that was notched; the genitals of a female animal sacrifice that were notched; the tail notched in the bone or the tip of the tail exposed to the bone. Rabbi Elazar said, "The sheath is a blemish only if notched, but if completely missing, it will eventually grow back."

A firstborn that has no testicles is blemished. If it has one testicle, Rabbi Ishmael says that if it has two pouches, it is a sign that it has a second testicle, and one need not check. Rabbi Akiva says that one needs to set it on its buttocks and squeeze, and the second testicle, if it's there, will come down, otherwise, it is a blemish. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri disagrees and says that even a testicle that is present but does not descend is not a blemish.

An animal that has five legs or three legs is blemished, but if a hind leg is missing, then it is in addition a terefah and cannot be eaten anyway, even with a blemish. A slipped thigh is a blemish but if the sinews have disintegrated, it is in addition a terefah.

Art: Richard Ansdell - The Wounded Hound

Bechorot 39 – Eye Exam for Firstborn Animals

2011-12-23T06:54:00.001-08:00

How does one check whether the condition of watery eye that obstructs the view is indeed a permanent blemish that won't heal? One needs to feed the animal first dry fodder (meaning, grown in dry months), then moist fodder (grown in moist months), coming from rain-watered fields, for three months, not in any other combination of factors. If the condition still persists, it is a sign that the blemish is permanent.

How much fodder has to be administered? – The volume of a dried fig. Should it be given at each meal or at the first meal? Before the meal or after? Before drinking or after? Should the animal be fettered or free to roam, in the city or in the field, and if in the field, is a garden next to the city good enough? All these questions remained unresolved.

Blemishes of the nose: if it was punctured, notched, or split, and the same for the lip. Qualifying blemishes of the mouth: front gums notched or cut, back gums completely uprooted. Rabbi Chanina ben Antignos says: “Gums from the molars and beyond are considered hidden blemishes and are therefore never examined, gums under molars including.”

Art: Gerrit Van Honthorst - The Tooth Puller

Bechorot 38 – Eye Blemishes of Firstborn Animals

2011-12-22T16:44:00.000-08:00

The first group of blemishes that can happen to a firstborn animal, leading it to loose its holiness and allow it to be slaughtered outside the Temple were blemishes of the ear. But how do we know the law of the blemishes altogether? The Torah said, “If an animal has a blemish” – include any blemish whatsoever. Then it continued “such as when it is crippled or blind” - to limit it only to blemishes that stop it from doing work. Then it generalized again, “any other blemish” to widen the definition, and include even permanent blemishes that don't stop it from doing work, such as the ones in the ear. And then the Torah limited it again, saying “serious” blemish, to exclude permanent blemishes that are not visible, such as in the gums inside the mouth. This method of Torah logic is called “amplification and limitation.”

The blemishes in the eye include punctured, notched, or split eyelid, a cataract (which requires special expertise), unusual growths, the white of the eye entering the black (but not the black entering the white), white flecks - a condition leading to blindness, and watery eyes if this completely obstructs the vision.

Art: Francois Verwilt - A shepherd couple with goats and a cow nearby

Bechorot 37 – Blemished Firstborn Animals Nowadays

2011-12-21T06:36:00.001-08:00

If a firstborn animal cannot be brought as a sacrifice, either because there is no Temple standing, or because it was born outside of Israel, a panel of three laymen can examine an obvious defect and authorize the slaughter based upon it. Obvious defects include a blind eye, a cut-off limb and other similar ones, and the examiners must be somewhat familiar with the laws of firstborn.

If one sells the meat of a firstborn without showing its blemish to an expert and the buyer eats some of it, the seller is penalized to refund the full price, and the rest of the meat is buried. Similarly, if one sells beef and it is found to be non-kosher, but the buyer already ate some, the seller refunds the fulls price. In general, this rule applies to anything that is considered disgusting, such as non-kosher meat or forbidden seafood, because the buyer would rather not have eaten it. However, if the food is prohibited only by a Rabbinical decree, the buyer cannot claim refund for what he already ate.

Blemishes qualifying for slaughter include ear notched in the cartilage but not in the skin, ear split, punctured, and dried up.

Art: Edward Ladell - Shrimps, a peeled lemon, a glass of wine and a blue and white ginger jar, on a draped table

Bechorot 36 – Who Can Be Believed About a Blemish

2011-12-20T18:47:00.000-08:00

When there is no Temple and a firstborn cannot be brought as a sacrifice, a Kohen stands to gain most when a firstborn has a blemish. Therefore, although a regular Jewish shepherd is believed to testify that a certain blemish occurred naturally and he did not cause it, a Kohen shepherd is not believed. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that he is believed concerning some else's firstborn, but not about his own, and Rabbi Meir says that one suspected concerning something can neither judge nor testify about it. Each teacher explains his reasons to trust or not to trust in a given situation, and the hopes of gain or inner justifications that a liar may have. In addition, “Kohen shepherd” may refer to a shepherd who happens to be a Kohen, or alternatively to anyone who works for a Kohen as a shepherd. Thus the Talmud goes through the two sets of possible reasons.

A Kohen is believed to say, “I showed this firstborn to an expert, and he concluded that it is permanently blemished, so I can slaughter it” - because in matters that may be discovered people usually don't lie.

Art: James Riddel - A Goat With Her Kid

Bechorot 35 – Unwitting Intentional Blemishes

2011-12-19T18:41:00.001-08:00

One Roman official saw an old firstborn ram with very long hair. When he found out that Jews could not do anything with an unblemished firstborn, he notched its ear with a spear, and the Sages allowed to slaughter the animal. He did this to other firstborns, but now the Sages forbade to slaughter.

Once kids tied the tails of lambs together, and caused a blemish in a firstborn, and the Sages allowed to slaughter it. The kids continued doing this, but the Sages forbade further slaughter.

If a firstborn was pursuing someone, and he kicked it and inflicted a blemish, they may slaughter it on the basis of this blemish. If he came over to kick it later, this blemish is prohibited. Now, this is obvious!? You might have said that he is releasing his pent-up anger, and this is a valid blemish, so the rule is that it's not. Some teach the opposite: if he became angry later and kicked it, this blemish permits the slaughter.

When an expert finds a blemish that could have been inflicted by a man, he needs a witness to testify that is was accidental, but people with vested interest cannot testify.

Art: Victor-Gabriel Gilbert - Boys Playing

Bechorot 34 – Blemish Caused on Purpose

2011-12-18T18:01:00.001-08:00

If one intentionally blemished the ear of a firstborn animal, Rabbi Eliezer forbids the slaughter based on this and on all future blemishes, since without this future penalty the person has nothing to loose: he could not slaughter it before and can't slaughter now. However, if we penalize him for the future, that will stop him. The Sages also forbid the slaughter based on this blemish, but they do allow it should a new, unrelated blemish occur. The Sages penalize him just for what he did, but not for the future.

If one blemished the ear of a firstborn animal and then died, is his son permitted to slaughter it? Did the Sages penalize only him or even his son? Now, you cannot derive the answer from the case where one sold his slave to an idolater, and the Sages did penalize his son and required him to redeem the slave, since every day the idolater forces the slave to transgress the Torah. Rather, compare this to one who improved his fields in the seventh year, Shmitah, and then died, and the Sages allowed the son to use the field. We see thus that the son is not penalized.

Art: Harmenszoon van Rijn Rembrandt - Samson Accusing His Father In Law

Bechorot 33 – Whom Can a Kohen Invite to Eat a Firstborn Animal?

2011-12-18T17:08:00.000-08:00

Previously we assumed that once a firstborn animal receives a blemish and can't be a sacrifice any longer, anyone can eat its meat. However, Beit Shammai use the Torah phrase, “Their flesh will be yours like the breast of waving...” - to prove that only the Kohanim can eat it. Beit Hillel say that this phrase applies only to unblemished firstborn. Instead, “the ritually pure and impure can eat it” is applicable here - and a non-Kohen is certainly included, since he can be pure. Beit Shammai answer that the ritually impure cannot be used for any proof, since the Passover offering is brought even when the Community of Israel is impure, but not by a non-Kohen. And Beit Hillel? They answer that this is talking about service, and they are talking about eating.

It is forbidden to inflict a blemish on a firstborn animal. If blood-letting is necessary for a firstborn animal to survive, Rabbi Yehudah still forbids it, since once you permit that, people will inflict other blemishes. They Sages say that if you prohibit bloodletting, people will certainly cause blemishes on purpose, thus the Sages allow blood-letting, but not the slaughter, should the blemish indeed occur.

Art: Camille-Leopold Cabaillot-Lasal - The Pet Lamb

Bechorot 32 – The Sages are Alive After Death

2011-12-16T08:31:00.001-08:00

The limitations on selling the meat of a firstborn animal apply to selling the meat of the animal tithe as well. There is, however, a problem with this rule: animal tithe scannot be sold at all! Rav Sheshet pondered the problem in the evening but resolved it the next morning: it is talking about tithes left to the orphans by their father!

Rav Idi, the assistant of Rav Sheshet, repeated this explanation without mentioning the author, and Rav Sheshet was upset. But why? If they repeat a true teaching, it should be enough! However, in the Song of Songs we have the verse, “The utterance of your palate is like a choice wine; it goes to my Beloved with sincerity, stirring the lips of those who sleep (in the grave).” When someone quotes a teaching in a sage's name, his lips stir in the grave. Of the three souls, the lower one stays in the grave and assumes the form of the body.

The orphans were given this special dispensation to protect their financial interests. However, all others have a loophole: they give the meat as a present, and ascribe the charge to the hoofs or horns.

Art: Walter Langley - The Orphan

Bechorot 31 – Selling the Meat of a Firstborn Animal

2011-12-15T07:24:00.000-08:00

Any male firstborn animal must be given to a Kohen, but if it has a blemish, the Kohen can sell it to others. Since the firstborn was sanctified at birth, then even after it received the blemish, it must be treated with respect. In fact, this is true about any sacrifice if it got a blemish and was redeemed, but there are some differences between firstborn and sacrificial animals.

The redemption money of a blemished sacrifice goes to the Temple, where it is used to bring another sacrifice. Therefore the Sages, following the rule that the Temple is always treated preferentially, tried to maximize the Temple's profit. The meat of such sacrifices can be sold in a market, and it can be weighed in a regular way. However, the meat of a firstborn animal has to be sold by the Kohen from his house and cannot be doled out using weights. Instead, a piece of regular meat can be weighed, and the meat of the firstborn is then weighed against this meat. People will pay less in a limited market and without precise weight, but that is acceptable.

Art: William Hunt - Early Morning in the Village Cattle Market

Bechorot 30 – People Who Are Untrustworthy

2011-12-14T06:22:00.001-08:00

One who is suspect to flaunt the laws of firstborn is not trusted to buy even deer meat from him. It is likewise forbidden to buy raw hides from him, but tanned hides are permitted: since, if he were discovered, he would loose the hide, he won't put that much labor into the hide of a firstborn.

One who is suspect of violating the laws of the seventh year (shemittah) is nevertheless trusted regarding tithes. He may consider tithes more stringent, because they are eaten within the walls of Jerusalem. Conversely, one who is suspect regarding tithes is still trusted regarding shemittah: he may regard shemittah as more stringent, since the produce of shemittah cannot not be redeemed for money. Rabbi Yochanan remarked, “That is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who authored many anonymous rulings, but Rabbi Meir would say that one who is suspect regarding a single commandment is suspect regarding all.”

If a convert accepted on himself the code of the Torah and then became suspect regarding only one aspect of it, he is considered suspect regarding all areas; however, his conversion is not invalidated. A Kohen who denies one commandment cannot serve in the Temple.

Art: Charles Olivier De Penne - The Deer Hunt

Bechorot 29 – Responsibilities of an Expert

2011-12-13T12:08:00.001-08:00

If one who is not an expert nevertheless examined a firstborn in the possession of a kohen, found a permanent blemish, and it was slaughtered based on his authorization, the animal is buried and the “expert” pays for the damage.

In general, if one adjudicated a monetary case, or a question of ritual purity, and caused a monetary damage by his incorrect decision, he needs to make restitution from his own property. However, if the judge was regarded a legal expert by the official court and they authorized him, then he does not have to make a restitution, because he is similar to an authorized slaughterer who bungled the slaughter.

If one takes a payment to inspect firstborns, his rulings are void, unless he is an exceptionally saintly person and takes a standard fee regardless of the outcome.

One should not take a fee for judging, testifying, or sprinkling the waters of a red heifer, and if he does, his actions are void. Just as God taught Torah to Moses for free, so one should teach others for free. However, he can be compensated for the wages lost by taking off from work, assuming he is paid as a laborer.

Art: Carl Neuman - Wise Words

Bechorot 28 – When Must the Firstborn Animal Be Eaten?

2011-12-12T22:17:00.001-08:00

The firstborn must be eaten “year by year”. What does this mean? If a firstborn was born blemished, it does not have the full holiness of the firstborn and therefore is allowed to be eaten. In that case it must be slaughtered and eaten within a year from its birth.

If the firstborn was born unblemished then in the time of the Temple it becomes eligible to be offered in the Temple after eight days. Within a year after this time it must indeed be brought as a sacrifice, slaughtered, and eaten by a Kohen and his family. Today an unblemished firstborn poses a problem: the owner must care for it and then give it to a Kohen. He cannot force the kohen to accept it, because it is a present, so if he cannot find a Kohen, he continues to care for it until it develops a blemish, however long this takes.

One can only slaughter a firstborn through the permission of an expert. If one first slaughtered it, and then showed it to an expert, Rabbi Yehudah permits it to be eaten, but Rabbi Meir forbids it because of a possible confusion.

Art: Lovis (Franz Heinrich Louis) Corinth - In The Slaughter House

Bechorot 27 – Kohen Helping on the Threshing Floor

2011-12-12T12:40:00.000-08:00

If a Kohen says to a Jew who is caring for a firstborn, “Give it to me before the prescribed time; you will have it off your hands, and I will now care for it” – the Jew is not allowed to do it. Why not? Because that kohen will appear as working for a reward. The firstborn animal is a gift, and it must be given freely and in a dignified manner. This is similar to a Kohen who would help on the threshing floor to later get his portion (terumah), or a Levite in a like situation, to get his tithe, and the Torah said, “Do not profane the holies of the Children of Israel, so that you will not die.”

So that the laws of terumah, or the Kohen's portion, were not forgotten, the Sages instituted it to be given in lands close to Israel even nowadays, but they made its laws more lenient. For example, it is nullified in a simple majority of regular produce, not in 1 in 100. There are similar leniencies regarding challah, the kohen's portion from dough, which the Sages required to give in all lands.

Art: Albert Dubois-Pillet - Lady Carrying Bread

Bechorot 26 – Caring for the Firstborn

2011-12-11T10:14:00.001-08:00

The teacher who allowed using wool that fell off a firstborn was Rabbi Akavya ben Mahalel. Even he allowed it only when an expert examined the animal and found a defect in it. The wool stored while the animal was alive becomes permitted after slaughter. The Sages prohibit this wool out of concern that one may keep the firstborn for a long time and not give it to a kohen.

One is obligated to care for a firstborn until it grows to a certain age, before giving it to a kohen. For a small animal this time period is thirty days, and for a large one – fifty. Rabbi Yose requires three months for a small animal.

How did the Sages arrive at these specific care-periods? The Torah said, “Your first fruit you shall not delay... so you shall do to your ox,” and this additional “do” was understood as an extra twenty days. The Torah was intentionally vague about the limits in the first place, giving the Sages a “blank check” to fill in the amounts, and they compared firstborn to first fruit. Rabbi Yose says that the Sages estimated the time that an animal is dependent on its mother.

Art: Alexander Mann - Sheep Shearing

Bechorot 25 – Shearing a Firstborn

2011-12-09T09:48:00.001-08:00

It is forbidden to shear a firstborn, even a blemished one. How is one to deal with the hair of the firstborn animal while slaughtering it? Rabbi Yose ben Meshulam gave a rule: one can clear the area on the neck for the shechitah incision. One may even pluck out the hair, but leave it in place, to avoid the impression that he is shearing it. Can one do it on a Yom Tov holiday? Is plucking not considered sharing, but it would still be prohibited on a Yom Tov, or is plucking permitted because he does not have the intention to shear, and in that case it would be allowed even on a Yom Tov? They asked Rav Huna, and he said that it is allowed.

If he does shear a firstborn, the wool is still prohibited for benefit. If some wool fell out and was placed in storage for safekeeping, and then the firstborn was slaughtered, the wool is now permitted. This is also true for wool that was sheared illegally while the firstborn was alive, but the teacher did not want to mention it.

Art: Tom Roberts - Shearing the Rams

Bechorot 24 – Does an Animal Nurse Only Its Own Child?

2011-12-09T09:04:00.001-08:00

If one buys a nursing animal from an idolater, and does not know whether it already had its first offspring, he can safely assume that the animal is nursing its own child and is therefore not subject to the law of firstborn anymore. While there are some animals that lactate before giving birth, in general animals do not nurse a child that is not their own. Also in a flock one can assume that each animal nurses its own child. A different point of view is that an animal will nurse a child not of its own even before it has given birth.

If one saw a young pig clinging to an ewe and nursing from it, the ewe is exempt from the law of a firstborn, because we can assume that this is not a pig but a mutant lamb. One can't eat it, because perhaps it is a pig after all. This rule seems to combine the two contradictory points of view above: does an animal feed a child that is not its own or it doesn't? The author thought that perhaps all agree that an animal may have mercy on another child, after it had its own.

Art: John Frederick Herring, Jnr.- Berkshire Saddlebacks with Piglets in a Farmyard

Bechorot 23 – Dormant Impurity Wakes Up

2011-12-08T15:08:00.001-08:00

Resh Lakish said, “One who buys fish brine from an ignorant person, not knowledgeable in the laws of purity, can purify this brine in the following way: make it slightly touch (kiss) the waters of a mikveh, and it will be pure. If this brine contains more than half water, then the water will be purified, and if it has more than half brine, then it's not proper food, does not accept food impurity, and the water in it is nullified.”

Rabbi Yirmiyah added, “This advice is only good to dip your bread in it, but not to put it into a pot for cooking. Why not? Because the dormant impure water will combine with the water in the pot, its impurity will wake up and make the whole pot impure.”

Abbaye was surprised, “Can nullified impurity re-awaken? Consider the blood cake of a miscarriage we learned about previously. It carries no impurity. But if, as you say, the impurity lies there dormant, one should become impure by carrying it, since in it are found all the pieces of the fetus, which are impure!” Rabbi Yirmiyah was silent and did not find a good answer.

Art: David The Younger Teniers - An interior scene with pots, barrels, baskets, onions and cabbages

Bechorot 22 – Buying an Animal from a Jew

2011-12-07T17:43:00.001-08:00

If one buys an animal from a Jew, then, unlike a non-Jew, this seller knows about various implications of the law of firstborn, and therefore we treat his statements or his silence differently. Rav said that the first offspring of the bought animal is a definite firstborn. Had the animal previously given birth, the seller would praise it now, because subsequent births are far less risky than the first one. He is silent because the animal has not given birth yet.

Shmuel says that the animal only might be a firstborn: the seller assumes that the buyer wants the animal for immediate slaughter, and firstborn simply doesn't matter. Rabbi Yochanan says that the first offspring is definitely not a firstborn: the Jew knows how serious the law of firstborn is, and he would certainly alert the buyer if the possibility of firstborn existed.

What is a sign of miscarriage in a large animal? If it discharged a bloody substance, which looks like a hard cake, it may contains disintegrated remains of a firstborn fetus. It must be buried, because a firstborn is prohibited for benefit. Afterwards, the mother is free from the law of firstborn.

Art: Giovanni Segantini - Goat With Offspring

Bechorot 21 – A Goat With Three Daughters

2011-12-06T22:28:00.001-08:00

If a young goat gave birth to triplet daughters, and each of her daughters gave birth to three daughters, then we have twelve goats born within a year. For example, the triplet daughter goats may be born on the first of Elul, and after six months each daughter conceived. Five months later, before the next Elul, each of the triplet herself bore triplet, and since the accounting for tithe goes from Elul to Elul, and there were at least ten of them, the whole family goes into the same pen for tithing. Rabbi Shimon says, “I myself saw a progeny of a single goat tithed within her first year.”

What is Rabbi Shimon saying differently? There are a few possible explanations. (1) The three sister goats miscarried on the last day of the sixth months, and the argument is whether a goat then refuses to mate for the next thirty days; (2) Again, they miscarried, but the argument is can a goat bear young before five months; (3) They agree that the goat needs five full months, but they argue whether a part of the day is considered as complete day; (4) They argue if a premature animal is tithed.

Art: Jakob Philippe Hackert - Italian Landscape With A Goat And Her Kid

Bechorot 20 – Did This Animal Have Its Firstborn Yet?

2011-12-05T13:31:00.001-08:00

If one buys an animal from an idolater and does not know whether she had already borne her first offspring, then Rabbi Ishmael says that the guidelines are as follows: if the animal is a goat and it produces a male offspring within her first year, that animal definitely belongs to the kohen. A goat is capable of kidding once it her first year, but not twice, as she will in the following years. Thus, a kid in her first year is the firstborn. After that, since we don't know if it had offspring while in the possession of the idolater, it is a firstborn out of doubt, that is, it is let to graze until it develops a blemish, and is then consumed by the owner. For an ewe the period is two years, and for a cow – three.

Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Ishmael, “If the law was that only actual birth exempts from the law of firstborn, it would be indeed as you say. But since even a miscarriage also exempts from it, it is never a definite firstborn, unless we know for sure.”

Art: Edward Atkinson Hornel - The Little Goat Herd

Bechorot 19 – What Is Considered A Firstborn?

2011-12-04T10:17:00.001-08:00

In the previously discussed case of simultaneous births, the final law follows the view of the Sages that things cannot be so precise. Therefore, one of the two born males is the real firstborn, but we don't know which one. Rabbi Tarfon says that the strongest and best is usually born first, and therefore the kohen gets the better one. However, later Rabbi Tarfon changed his mind. Rabbi Akiva says that the kohen would have to prove his claim in court, and since he can't, he gets the worse one.

The remaining lamb still might be a firstborn, and for this reason it is let to graze until it develops a blemish, and then it may be slaughtered and consumed. From this second one, the kohen gets the gifts, because he can advance the following two-prong argument: if it is a firstborn, it should completely belong to me, and if it is not, at least the gifts should belong to me!

To have the law of the firstborn, the animal needs to be a male, be the first offspring of its mother, and be vaginally delivered, because the Torah required it to be the “first one to open the womb.”

Art: Sir Hubert von Herkomer - The First Born

Bechorot 18 – Is It Possible To Be Exact?

2011-12-03T21:35:00.001-08:00

Rabbi Yose said that events in nature can occur simultaneously, and certainly in human effort one can be exactly precise. The Sages disagreed about events in nature, either because events rarely occur simultaneously, or because the error in our measurement will not let us ascertain this. What would they say about human effort?

Does the red line exactly in the middle of the Altar prove that one can be exact? – No, it doesn't, for perhaps it was intentionally drawn thicker to account for error.

If one breaks a ritually impure clay oven into pieces, the pieces are pure, but if he divides it exactly in half, both pieces remain impure - because one piece is the larger one and is impure, only we don't know which. Thus, precision is impossible!? – No! clay has jugged edges, but perhaps with other materials one can be precise.

If a murder victim is found exactly between two cities, they jointly bring a calf for atonement - because in reality the body is closer to one city - which makes this city obligated to bring the calf - only we don't know which one. This proves that one cannot be precise!? -- Yes, it does.

Art: Pancraz Koerle - The Broken Vase

Bechorot 17 – How Many Generations of Firstborn Exemptions?

2011-12-01T18:57:00.001-08:00

Previously we learned that when a Jew accepts from an idolater sheep valued at a fixed sum, with the arrangement of sharing in the offspring, the offspring are exempt from the laws of the firstborn. Rav Huna understands this to mean only the next generation, but Rav Yehudah says that the next two generations are exempt, because this is how far the lien extends. They derive their respective views from the analysis of the dissenting opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who says that all generations are exempt.

If an ewe gave birth to two male lambs and their heads emerged from the womb simultaneously, then Rabbi Yose HaGlili says that both are firstborn and both are given to a kohen, since the Torah said, “The males belong to God.” However, the Sages disagree and say that it is impossible for two events to happen exactly at the same time. Therefore, one was the firstborn, only we don't know which one, and the kohen gets one animal. Rabbi Yose then says that this Torah phrase is exactly the source teaching that simultaneous events occur. And the Sages? The say that “males” just means all males in general.

Art: Richard Ansdell - A Ewe with Lambs and a Heron Beside a Loch

Bechorot 16 – Saving Offspring of Redeemed Animals

2011-11-30T13:14:00.001-08:00

If a consecrated animal became blemished and was redeemed, its offspring are forbidden. Of course, if the animal gave birth after redemption, its offspring is completely permitted, but here it was pregnant when it was redeemed. What can you now do with the offspring? We cannot bring it as a sacrifice, since it was born from a mother that was a disqualified and therefore rejected sacrifice. Neither can we redeem it, because the offspring never became a sacrifice. Therefore, said Rav Huna, they have to be locked in a room and left to die. However, in Israel they said that one should sanctify the fetus before birth, to be the same sacrifice type as its mother, and then the redemption of its mother won't affect it and it will be a fit sacrifice.

If one accepts animals from an idolater as fixed-income investment, that is, they will share in the offspring, but he promises to later return the fixed sum, the cost of the animals at the start of the deal – the animals are exempt from the laws of firstborn, because the idolater has a lien on them and can claim them in lieu of payment.

Art: John Frederick Herring, Jnr. - Animals In A Farm Yard

Bechorot 15 – If a Consecrated Animal Became Blemished

2011-11-29T16:31:00.001-08:00

If an animal was consecrated, but afterwards developed a blemish and was redeemed, it never completely goes back to its previous state: it is exempt from the laws of firstborn, and one does not have to give gifts from it to a kohen, that is, foreleg, jaws, and abomasum. Why is this? The Torah said about a redeemed sacrifice, “You can eat it, like a deer or an ibex.” The extra word “deer” teaches us that it is not subject to the laws of firstborn, just as a deer is not subject to them, and the extra word “ibex” - that the kohen's gifts need not be given – just as they need not be given from an ibex.

The redeemed animal cannot be shorn or put to work, and its milk is prohibited. Why? The Torah said, “you may slaughter it” - but not shear it or work with it, “for its meat” - but not drink its milk. Finally, “and you will eat” teaches that you may not give it to your dogs. In general, an animal that's once been a consecrated may not be redeemed with the purpose of feeding it to the dogs.

Art: Winslow Homer - Dogs In A Boat

Bechorot 14 – Consecrating Animals with a Blemish

2011-11-28T21:23:00.001-08:00

An offering must be without blemish, and even consecrating a blemished animal is forbidden. Actually, if one consecrates a blemished animal as a sacrifice, no consecration occurs at all, but if he says, “I am consecrating this blemished animal in order that it be sold, and a sacrifice brought with the money,” then, although he violated a prohibition, the animal needs to be redeemed.

After redemption it is again liable to the law of firstborn (that's the connection of this ruling to "Bechorot"), it may be shorn and put to work, and its offspring is permitted. Now, if the offspring was born after redemption, obviously it is permitted, and if it was born before the redemption, it should be forbidden, because it is unblemished, fit for a sacrifice! However, its law cannot be more strict than that of its mother's - who is permitted.

If it dies, its carcass may still be redeemed. But usually for redemption the animal needs to stand up, which a dead animal cannot do! However, this is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who requires standing only for real sacrifices. Those who disagree with him would indeed disallow redemption and require the animal to be buried.

Art: William Gowe Ferguson - Still-Life with Dead Game

Bechorot 13 – Firstborn of a Kosher Animal

2011-11-27T21:03:00.001-08:00

If one designated a sheep for the redemption of a firstborn donkey, and the sheep died, the owner is responsible to replace it with another lamb, just as a father of a firstborn boy is responsible to replace the redemption money, should be it lost before it reaches the kohen – this is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. However, the Sages say that the owner is not responsible for the replacement lamb, just as he is not responsible for the second tithe, which, if lost, need not be replaced.

If one buys the fetus of an idolaters cow or sells him his own cow's fetus – although he is not allowed to do so, or buys the cow jointly with an idolater – the cow is exempt from the law of firstborn, because the Torah said “all firstborn in Israel” – but not in other nations.

By contrast, the kohanim and Levites are included in the obligation of the firstborn of kosher animals. They were only excluded from the redemption of their sons and donkeys. Thus, a kohen who owns a cow, sheep or goat that gives birth to a male as it first offspring brings it as an offering.

Art: Willem Romeijn - Cow, Goats and Sheep in a Meadow

Bechorot 12 – What is Not Good for Redeeming a Firstborn Donkey

2011-11-27T14:35:00.001-08:00

One cannot use the following to redeem a firstborn donkey: a calf, a wild animal, a slaughtered animal - even a slaughtered sheep, a sick animal - terefah, a hybrid - even an offspring of a male goat and a female sheep, or a koy - an offspring of a deer and a goat. Rabbi Eliezer allows redemption with a hybrid, because both a goat and a sheep separately can be used.

Can we redeem a firstborn donkey with a live fetus found in a womb of a slaughtered sheep? Is it a live sheep, good for a redemption, or, since it does not require proper slaughter, it is considered as meat already slaughtered, not valid for redemption? Can one use a mutant – an animal that is similar to a different species? Is it close enough to hybrid, which is forbidden? Can one use a disqualified sacrifice? Since the sanctity of a donkey cannot possibly go over to the sacrifice, the redemption is not possible, or does this sanctity just fly away? Can one use the produce of the seventh (Shemittah) year for redemption? Is it closer to prohibited commerce or to permitted food?

Art: William Snr Luker - Deer In The New Forest

Bechorot 11 – How Much for a Firstborn Donkey?

2011-11-25T13:32:00.001-08:00

The preferred method of redeeming a firstborn donkey is to give the kohen a sheep. A generous person gives a sheep worth 4 zuz, stingy – 2 zuz, and average – 3 zuz, and a zuz is $50. However, even a very lean sheep worth $10 will also make the redemption. Alternatively, one can give anything of value, even cooked vegetables, but then the amount should be equal to the worth of the donkey.

If one redeems his fellow's firstborn donkey, it is valid. Does he acquire the donkey? Do we say that it is similar to consecrated property, and the redeemer acquires it, or do we say that it still belongs to the owner, since he could have redeemed it with a very cheap sheep? The answer comes from the rule about stealing a firstborn donkey. If a thief were to steal it, he would pay the owner double, the usual penalty for stealing from an individual, and not single, the penalty for stealing consecrated property. We see then that it belongs to the owner, and we can conclude that it is not like consecrated property, and that the redeemer does not acquire it.

Art: Vincent Van Gogh - Still Life With Vegetables And Fruit

Bechorot 10 – If The Firstborn Donkey Is Not Redeemed...

2011-11-24T06:49:00.001-08:00

If one does not wish to redeem his firstborn donkey, he must decapitate it with a butcher's cleaver, from the back of the neck. Rabbah said: “Even Rabbi Shimon, who permits using the firstborn donkey before redeeming it with a sheep, agrees that after decapitation it can't be used. What is the reason? Compare it to a calf that was decapitated to atone for an unsolved murder case; this calf was buried in the valley and not used. So too the decapitated donkey cannot be used.”

How does Rabbah know Rabbi Shimon's opinion? Because in the list of foods that can become impure Rabbi Shimon does not include the meat of a decapitated donkey. We must conclude that Rabbi Shimon deems it forbidden for benefit, thus, one cannot sell it even for others to eat. However, the Talmud rejects his proof: perhaps donkey meat is not food simply because people don't usually eat it? This attack is parried: the prohibition of the Torah to eat it elevates it to the status of food.

And Rabbah? “Since he caused loss to a kohen, his donkey should now be lost to him” describes the position of Rabbi Shimon.

Art: Ebenezer Newman Downard - A Donkey At A Gate

Bechorot 9 – A Case of Uncertain Firstborn Donkey

2011-11-23T12:10:00.001-08:00

If one has a female donkey that had not previously given birth, and it bore two males, he gives one lamb to a kohen as redemption. Although he does not know which one is the firstborn, but one of them is, and it needs redemption. If it bore a male and a female, then it could be that the male is the firstborn, in which case redemption is needed, but it could also be that the female was born first, and then redemption is not required. Accordingly, he separates a sheep as a possible redemption, but keeps it, because the kohen cannot prove that the sheep belongs to him by right. As always in money matters, the burden of proof is on the claimant, who in this case is the kohen.

Before the firstborn donkey is redeemed, it is forbidden for benefit – so says Rabbi Yehudah. What is his reason? – Is there anything that requires redemption that would be permitted to use before redemption? – Certainly not! However, Rabbi Shimon says that it is permitted. What is his reason? – Is there anything whose redemption (sheep) is permitted to use while it itself is forbidden? Of course not!

Art: John Singer Sargent - Donkeys in a Desert

Bechorot 8 – The Gestation of a Snake

2011-11-22T22:18:00.001-08:00

All creatures copulate face to back, except for fish, man, and snakes. Why are these different? – Because they were addressed by the Divine Presence: some people were prophets, fish – in the incident with Jonah, and snake – in Paradise.

The snake was cursed more than all the beasts, and its pregnancy lasts seven times longer than that of a donkey, that is, seven years. Caesar said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya, “How long is the gestation of a snake?” Rabbi Yehoshua answered, “Seven years.” Caesar then said, “But the philosophers of Athens mated the snakes, and they bore young only after three years!” Rabbi Yehoshua answered, “Those snakes had already been pregnant four years before the Athenians began to study them.” Caesar was not satisfied, “But these snakes copulated when mated by the Athenians, so they could not be pregnant!” Rabbi Yehoshua answered, “The snakes copulate even during pregnancy, as do people.” The Caesar said, “But the Athenians are wise, and can be trusted in their scientific findings!” Rabbi Yehoshua answered, “We the Jewish Sages are wiser than they.”

Caesar then asked Rabbi Yehoshua to go, best the Athenians in argument, and bring them to Rome. Rabbi Yehoshua successfully evaded all dangers, answered all twelve problems, and tricked them into boarding his ship. He also took some earth from Athens. When he came to Rome, the Caesar saw they they were meek, and said, “These are not they, for the Athenian philosophers are arrogant!” Rabbi Yehoshua tossed some earth upon them, they regained their self-assurance and grew haughty toward the emperor.

Art: Jan van Kessel - The Enemies of Snakes

Bechorot 7 – Why Is Milk Kosher?

2011-11-21T20:01:00.001-08:00

The rule that “whatever comes from kosher is kosher” includes milk. But how do we know that milk is allowed for consumption, given that other parts taken from a live animal are forbidden? Is it because mixture of meat and milk is forbidden, and therefore milk must be permitted? – No, it might be permitted only for benefit. Is it because of Solomon's words “Let the milk of goats be sufficient for your food...” - perhaps that, too, is only to sell it and buy food. Rather, it is because David brought for his brothers cheese made from milk. And if you say there too that he wanted them to sell it – is war the time for trade? Alternatively, it is because Israel is praised as land flowing with milk.

If a non-kosher fish swallowed a kosher fish, the kosher fish is still permitted to be eaten, and if a kosher fish swallowed a non-kosher fish, the non-kosher is prohibited to be eaten – provided that the fish inside was not spawned. Kosher fish lay eggs, and non-kosher spawn their young; all creatures that bear live young suckle them, while all that lay eggs gather food to feed their hatchlings, except for the bat which, though it lays eggs, nevertheless suckles its young; dolphins reproduce as humans, and some say, with humans. Which dolphins are we talking about? – Mermaids whom human males can impregnate.

Art: George Willoughby Maynard - Mermaids

Bechorot 6 – Mutants

2011-11-20T22:03:00.001-08:00

Following rulings discuss the laws of mutants (known as “one that resembles something else”) - first, as they apply to firstborn, and then as they apply to kosher and non-kosher animals.

If a cow bore a firstborn resembling a donkey, or a donkey bore a firstborn resembling a horse, it is exempt from the laws of firstborn. The Torah said, “Firstborn of a donkey,” and then repeated, “Firstborn of a donkey” to tell us that the offspring must resemble his mother, a donkey.

What is the status of such an animal for consumption, for example, if a cow bore a calf that resembles a donkey? If a kosher animal bore an offspring resembling a non-kosher animal, it is still permitted for consumption, even if it is lacking kosher signs. Conversely, if a non-kosher animal bore an offspring resembling a kosher animal, it is forbidden for consumption. Here is the rule: a product of that which is non-kosher is itself non-kosher, and the product of that which is kosher is itself kosher.

Art: Karel Dujardin - A White Horse, A Cow And A Donkey In A Landscape

Bechorot 5 – Were Firstborn Sanctified in the Desert?

2011-11-20T07:49:00.001-08:00

Rabbi Yochanan said that the firstborn were sanctified in the desert, since the Merciful One said “Sanctify for Me every firstborn,” but Resh Lakish said that they were not, as in the phrase “When God brings you to the land of Canaanites... you will set apart every firstborn to God” – then, but not prior to that.

Rabbi Yochanan, “But the firstborn brought sacrifices in the desert, before the Tabernacle was built!?” Resh Lakish: “These were firstborn born in Egypt, but not born in the desert. In fact, I have a question against you from your proof: the Tabernacle was built one year after the Exodus, so how could one-year-old firstborn bring sacrifices?” Now, that is so obvious, how could Rabbi Yochanan ask such a question? He answers, “If there was no firstborn sanctification in the desert, the previous one also ceased.”

Kuntrukos the Roman minister asked Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, “There were two hundred talents of silver collected, but only one hundred was used. Moses your teacher must have been a thief, a kidnapper who hid half the people, or he just could not count.” Rabban Yochanan replied, “Moses our teacher was a trustworthy treasurer and a skilled accountant. However, the talent of the Temple was twice the size of the common unit, thus, the 200 talents collected were only 100 in terms of the Temple units.” How does he know that? From Ezekiel's phrase, “Sixty shekels will be a talent for you,” whereas a regular talent was only thirty shekels.

Art: George Cruikshank I - The thief - Jonathan Wild Thief Turned Thief Taker Throwing Richard Trenchard Down The Well

Bechorot 4 – How Firstborn Lost Their Position

2011-11-18T12:34:00.001-08:00

Since the times of Adam sacrificial service was performed by the firstborn. Jacob, who was born second, had to buy this right from Esau. This was still the practice when Jews came out of Egypt. However, when the firstborn worshiped the Golden Calf, they lost their privilege and were superseded by the Levites, the only group who did not participate.

To transfer the Temple rights of the firstborn to the Levites, the firstborn were counted, and the Levites were taken as an exchange for them. Of the total number of 22,300 Levites, 300 were themselves first-born, and could not be used to redeem the other firstborn, so 300 firstborn had to redeem themselves with money.

We can see that the Levites and the Kohanim (who are members of the tribe of Levy) are exempt from the laws of firstborn with the "a fortiori" reasoning: if they could exempt other firstborn, then certainly they can exempt themselves. The firstborn donkeys are mentioned by the Torah in the same phrase with the human firstborn to tell us that their law is the same, that is, the Levites are free from the obligation of the firstborn donkey.

Art: Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema - The Death Of The First Born

Bechorot 3 – Selling an Animal to a Non-Jew

2011-11-17T06:09:00.001-08:00

We learned that although selling an animal to a non-Jew removes it from the laws of firstborn, in general it is forbidden to do so. Why? Some say that since a Jew does not make his animal work on Shabbat, and the non-Jew does, we should not remove the animal from the Shabbat observance. Others say that once an animal is completely owned by a non-Jew, its Shabbat observance should not concern us. Rather, if one is allowed to sell livestock, eventually he may come to rent it out, and then the Jew will have caused his animal to work on Shabbat. Finally, some say that “forbidden to do so” refers here to removing the animal from the sanctity of the firstborn. (Nowadays the custom is to permit this).

Rabbi Yehudah allows selling an animal with a broken leg, because it can’t work anyway. What would he say about selling a firstborn fetus? Is it allowed, because it can’t work now, or is it prohibited, because it will be able to work later? Since in another place he gives the reason “because it cannot heal,” and this reason does not apply to a fetus, we deduce that he prohibits it.

Art: Sydney S. Morrish - Sabbath Evening In A Shepherd's Cottage

Bechorot 2 – The Laws of a Firstborn Donkey

2011-11-16T05:41:00.001-08:00

Since the Jewish firstborn did not die in Egypt, they are given a special status. A firstborn donkey has to be redeemed with a sheep or a goat, which is then given to a kohen. A firstborn kosher animal, if it is a male, has to be given to a kohen, who then brings it as a sacrifice. A firstborn human male is redeemed by giving money to a kohen. Today the law of a firstborn still applies, but in the absence of a Temple, animals are made exempt from this law by joint ownership of the mother animal with a non-Jew.

The teacher will first discuss the exemptions from the law of the firstborn, and in these he will start with the donkey, because its laws are simpler.

If one buys a fetus of an idolater’s donkey, or he sells his donkey’s fetus, even though he is not allowed to do this, the fetus is exempt from the law of the firstborn. The same is true for various kinds of joint ownership, because the Torah said “all firstborn in Israel,” – but not owned jointly with a non-Jew.

Art: Eduard Karl Gustav Lebrecht Pistorius - The Donkey Seller

Chullin 142 – Reward for the Mitzvot

2011-11-15T20:48:00.001-08:00

One may not take the mother bird while on her young even if he needs her to purify the leper and allow him to enter the Temple. This is true even though he wants to send her away as part of the purification ritual. By sending the bird away he loses a small amount of money, and still the Torah promised “that it will be good for you and you will live long.” How much more so does this apply to the difficult commandments of the Torah.

Rabbi Yakov said that “good and long life” can only mean the next world, not this one. In fact, the mention of the reward is itself a proof of the resurrection of the dead, because only in the next world is the true reward possible. For if you don’t say so, what about a son whom his father asked to send away the mother bird, and while performing this mitzvah and respecting his parent, for which long life is promised, he fell from the tree and died?

But perhaps such an incident could never happen? – Rabbi Yakov saw it. But perhaps he had bad thoughts? – God does not count bad thoughts as deeds. But perhaps he was thinking about idol worship, where thoughts are counted as deeds? – The mitzvahs should have protected him from such thoughts. Since they did not, this proves that there is no reward for them in this world.

But how could he die while performing a mitzvah; those sent to perform a mitzvah are not harmed, even on the way back!? – The ladder was shaky, and in a place of danger this rule does not work. Acher, the famous Sage turned bad, was the grandfather of Rabbi Yakov. Had he heard his grandson’s explanation, he might not have sinned: "so that it will be good with you" refers to a world that is truly good, and “so that your days will be prolonged” refers to life in a world that is truly long.

Art: Giovanni Battista Tiepolo - The entrance to a large barn, a ladder leaning against the wall to the left

Chullin 141 – How To Send The Mother Bird Away

2011-11-15T05:38:00.001-08:00

If the mother bird was flying above the nest, as long as her wings are touching the nest, he is still obligated to send her away, but if the wings are not touching, he is exempt. This is derived from the special word for sitting, “rovetzet” that the Torah used, literally, crouching.

If there were fledgling chicks in the nest or infertile eggs, he does not send the mother bird away. The chicks must be like the eggs, dependent on their mother, and the eggs like the chicks, viable.If one sent the mother bird away and she returned, he is still obligated to send her away, any number of times.

If one violated the commandment and took the mother bird, he incurs lashes, like for any negative commandment – these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. However, the Sages say that he does not incur lashes, because of a general rule: any negative commandment , if it is followed a positive commandment can be corrected with this positive act. Here too, the Torah said, “Do not take the mother… send her away,” so sending her away afterwards helps.

Art: Martin Johnson Heade - Two Ruby Throats by their Nest

Chullin 140 –Sending Away The Mother on Non-Kosher Birds

2011-11-14T22:15:00.001-08:00

One does not need to send away the mother-bird of a non-kosher variety before taking her eggs. The Torah used a special word for “bird” – “tzippor,” which is used only for kosher birds.

If a nonkosher bird is sitting on eggs of a kosher bird, or vice versa, one does not have to send her away. Now, we understand the nonkosher bird case – it is non-kosher, as we just learned, even if it sits on kosher eggs, but what’s the problem with the kosher bird on nonkosher eggs? – The Torah said “and the young you will take for yourself” and here, since they are nonkosher, you can only take them for someone else.

Rabbi Yirmiyah asked, “If the bird sits on unattached feathers which are on the eggs, is it considered sitting on the eggs or no, and does one have to send her way?" – No answer was found. Male partridges characteristically sit on other birds’ eggs, does one have to send him away? Rabbi Eliezer indeed says “yes,” but the Sages say “no.”

Art: Jacomo (or Victor, Jacobus) Victors - Still Life Of Two Courting Doves, A Partridge And Her Chicks

Chullin 139 – Does Sending Away Mother Bird Apply to Sacrifices?

2011-11-14T06:12:00.001-08:00

Sending away the mother bird does not apply to sacrifices. However, how could this case occur? If one consecrated birds that are his, he was never obligated to send away their mother, because he needs to find the birds by chance. And if he found them and consecrated, they do not become consecrated, because they do not belong to him! Should we say that he lifted the chicks and consecrated them, then returned them to the nest? Then again he is not obligated to send away the mother bird.

Rav said, “The case is where he consecrated the birds, but they flew away, and he found them,” and Shmuel said “He consecrated his hen as money for the Temple, and it flew away and nested elsewhere.” It is understandable why Shmuel does not agree to Rav, because Shmuel’s explanation is wider in scope, but why does Rav not agree to Shmuel? Rav will say that when a hen flies away, its monetary sanctity disappears. And Shmuel? He will answer that the hen is still consecrated in the wild, because “To God belong the earth and its fullness.”

Art: Bela Spanyi - Flock Of Birds At Sunset

Chullin 138 – Sending Away the Mother Bird

2011-11-13T20:53:00.001-08:00

If one buys a fleece of a flock, then if he left any fleece with the seller, the seller is obligated to give the first fleece, and if he bought it all – he is obligated. Why should it be, it seems to make no difference if he left any or not!? Really, the obligation of the first fleece is always with the original owner. If he is left with some fleece, it is clear that he kept it so that he can give it to a kohen. If he sold all of it, we assume that he simply means that the buyer will give the kohen’s portion, acting as his agent.

If one chances upon a bird’s nest, with a mother bird sitting on the eggs or on the young, he should not take the mother with the young, but he should send her away. The somewhat similar commandment of covering the blood is stricter: it applies to wild animals and birds, whether the birds are prepared or not, while sending away the mother bird applies only to birds, and only if they are "not prepared," but come your way by chance, not like chicken that nested in one's house.

Art: John Anster Fitzgerald - Fairies In A Bird's Nest

Chullin 137 – First Fleece – Only Wool of Sheep, not of Goats

2011-11-13T07:19:00.001-08:00

We learned that the kohen's gifts are strict: they apply to all animals, many or few, while the first fleece is more lenient. But there is yet another stringency: kohen's gifts do not apply to a sick animal (terefah), why is this not mentioned? – Because the author of our ruling is Rabbi Shimon, who says that the first fleece also does not apply to sheep that are terefah either – because the Torah used the same word “give” here and in discussing animal tithe; the tithed animal “walks under the rod” and terefah sometimes cannot walk.

The first fleece is given to a kohen only from sheep, because the word "shearing" used by the Torah only applies to sheep, and goat hair is “plucked.” This meaning of the word "shearing" becomes clear from the book of Job: “from the fleece of my sheep he warmed himself.”

“Any amount” of fleece that the Sages require to be given to a kohen was only said in contrast to Rabbi Yose's eight pounds, but really they mean about five times less than that, and there are four opinions about their opinion.

Art: Paolo Veronese (Caliari) - Portrait of a Man in a Fur Coat

Chullin 136 - Kohen's Gifts According to Rabbi Ilai

2011-11-11T15:02:00.001-08:00

When the Torah say “your” in singular, it refers both to each individual Jew, and to the whole Jewish people. Therefore, the law it discusses applies to an individual as well as to a partnership. For example, when it says, “The first of your (singular) fleece give to a kohen,” this applies also to sheep of partners. Rabbi Ilai disagrees and holds that “your” in singular refers to an individual, but partners shearing their flock need not give the first fleece to a kohen.

Furthermore, in talking about the first of the fleece, the Torah uses the word “give,” and the same word is used in describing the kohen's portion of the grain. This, according to Rabbi Ilai, tells us that just as the kohen's portion of grain is given only in Israel, so too the first fleece is given only in Israel.

Finally, the same word "give" is used in describing kohen's gifts. And, just as the kohen's portion of the grain is given only in Israel, it should follow that according to Rabbi Ilai, the kohen's gifts are given only in Israel. Rabbi Yose said, “Indeed, that is the opinion of Rabbi Ilai.”

Art: George Lambert - Weighing The Fleece

Chullin 135 - The First of the Fleece

2011-11-10T06:04:00.001-08:00

Another gift given to a kohen is the first of the fleece. Since the Torah said, “And the first of the fleece of your flock you shall give to him (the kohen),” whenever one shears his sheep, he must give part of the fleece to a kohen. This mitzvah is not connected to land, and thus applies both inside of Israel and outside. It also applies whether the Temple is standing or not. However, since the Torah said “your flock”, we understand that the flock of the Temple is not included, and thus one does not give to a kohen fleece from sacrifices.

The previously discussed gifts of foreleg, jaw, and abomasum are more stringnent in that they apply to sheep and cows, whether many or few. In contrast, the first of the fleece only applies to a flock of sheep, and to a significant shearing. What is a flock? Two sheep according to Bait Shammai, and five sheep according to Bait Hillel. What is a significant shearing? Rabbi Dosa says, “Five sheep each giving one-and-a-half maneh of wool, which amounts to eight pounds,” but the Sages say, “Five sheep shorn in any amount.”

Art: John Frederick Tayler - Sheep Shearing

Chullin 134 – The Owner of the Cow Converted

2011-11-09T20:54:00.000-08:00

If someone converted to Judaism and he owned a cow, then if the cow was slaughtered before he converted, he is exempt from giving kohen's gifts from that cow, and if the cow was slaughtered after his conversion, he is obligated to give them. If it is uncertain which came first, he is exempt – because the burden of proof of ownership falls on the kohen who cannot prove it with certainty.

What exactly constitutes the foreleg given to a kohen? – From the carpus (knee) to the shoulder blade. The foreleg of a nazir's offering, coming from a ram, which is cooked and waved, is defined the same way. So is that portion of the hind leg which is given to a kohen from each peace offering. Rabbi Yehudah says that only the middle part of the thigh is given to a kohen.

What is a jaw? The portion that extends from the joint of the jaw to the opening of the trachea, and the tongue is included with it. Actually both jaws are meant. The kohanim merited the gifts because of Pinchas, who threw the spear with his right arm, and prayed with his jaws.

Art: Max Liebermann - Farmer and Cow

Chullin 133 – Which Kohen Gets the Gifts

2011-11-09T05:43:00.001-08:00

The kohanic gifts, such as the foreleg, must be eaten roasted and with mustard, like kings usually eat, since the Torah gave them “for greatness.” Alternatively, one eats them in any manner he likes, again, like kings. Rav Chisda said, “Any kohen who does not know the laws of all twenty-four kohanic gifts (like the one just stated) is not given the gifts.” But we learned that any kohen who does not accept the kohanic services should not be given gifts, so his acceptance is the criteria, not his knowledge?! – With this, Rav Chisda is disproved.

Abaye, who was a kohen, said, “At first I would grab the gifts, to show love for the mitzva. Once I learned the phrase 'the owner will give', I understood that it is improper to grab, and started asking for them instead. After I learned that the sons of Shmuel 'turned aside after monetary gain' by asking for their portion, I would only take if given. When I learned about the Bread of Vision that the discreet kohanim would withdraw their hands, and only gluttons took, I do not even take, except on the day before Yom Kippur, to remind the people that I am a kohen.”

Art: Gabriel Metsu - The Feast Of The Bean King

Chullin 132 – Gifts for the Daughter of a Kohen

2011-11-08T05:59:00.001-08:00

Ulla used to give kohen's gifts to a kohenet – a daughter of a kohen. Why? When the Torah told to give the gifts to a kohen, we understand that a kohenet is excluded. However, when it said the word “kohen” again, this is a double exclusion, which always means an inclusion, and a kohenet is now included. Rav Pappa was married to a kohenet, and people would bring him kohen's gifts.

A first male of kosher animal is normally given to a kohen. If one firstborn became mingled with a hundred animals belonging to different people, and each owner slaughters his animal, nobody gives kohen's gifts. Each owner can claim that it is he who is slaughtering the firstborn, and kohen's gifts are not applicable to his animal. Even though the majority of the animals are obligated in kohen's gifts, in money matters we do not follow the majority, but the prevailing rule is that one who wants to extract money from his fellow needs to bring a proof to his claim, and here the kohen looses. However, if one person slaughters all of the animals, he needs to give kohen's gifts from all but one animal.

Art: Eugène Verboeckhoven - A Panoramic Summer Landscape With Cattle Grazing In A Meadow By A Windmill

Chullin 131 – One Who Damages or Eats the Kohen's Gifts

2011-11-07T21:41:00.001-08:00

We learned that the foreleg, jaw, and abomasum of a slaughtered animal are a kohen's portion and should be given to him. However, Rav Chisda said that if one damages or eats these gifts, he does not have to pay. That is because the Torah said “This shall be his due” - meaning, only while “this” due is extant. The Talmud challenges Rav Chisda's ruling seven times, but Rav Chisda defends it each and every time.

For example, if a person of means runs out of funds while in travel, he is allowed to take the poor people's portion, that is, grain that fell, was forgotten, or remained at the corners of a field and was designated by the Torah for the poor. Still, when he comes back home, he needs to send the money to the poor people of that place, in order to repay them. By the same token, one should repay the kohen for his gifts that he damaged or ate!? Rav Chisda answers that to repay the poor is a decent act, but not a requirement, and the same goes for the kohen's gift.

Art: Alessandro Sani - A Gift From Grandpa

Chullin 130 – Foreleg, Jaws and Abomasum

2011-11-07T05:37:00.001-08:00

The foreleg, jaws, and abomasum of a slaughtered animal are a portion of a kohen; one should separate them and give them to the kohen of his choice. This law is called “the law of gifts.” It does not depend upon land, and therefore should apply inside of the Land of Israel and outside, whether the Temple is standing or not. However, in practice people follow the more lenient opinion of Rabbi Ilai.

The law of the gifts applies to regular animals but not to consecrated ones. Actually, one could decide that it does apply to the consecrated animals, with the following “a fortiori” argument: since unconsecrated animals, which are not subject to the law of breast and thigh – which must be, in the case of peace offering, given to the kohen and his family to eat – are nevertheless subject to the law of gifts, then consecrated animal, which are subject to the law of breast and thigh, must surely be subject to the law of gifts! To dispel this notion, the Torah said, “I have given them (breast and thighs) as gifts" – meaning, only “them” but not the foreleg, jaw, and abomasum.

Art: Pieter de Grebber - Elisha Refusing Gifts From Naaman

Chullin 129 – Dangling Limb of a Person

2011-11-06T18:08:00.000-08:00

One day Rabbi Assi did not go to the study hall. Afterwards, he met Rabbi Zeira and asked him, “What was said in the study hall?” Rabbi Zeira answered, “And what's your problem?” Rabbi Assi said, “We learned that if one first has a thought to eat a piece of meat, and then cuts it off a limb severed from a live animal, that piece of meat accepts ritual impurity of foods. But why? It was not prepared for impurity by becoming wet!” However, Rabbi Assi was missing another principle: “If something can acquire a severe impurity that can even make people impure, it does not need preparation to become impure itself.”

The limb or flesh that are dangling from a living person are ritually pure: since the person is still alive, they are considered part of him. If he dies, the flesh is pure, but the limb conveys impurity as a limb from a live person, not a dead person. What's the difference, if both have the impurity of the dead? In the first case, a small piece of flesh from this limb does not convey impurity, but in the second it does.

Art: Arie de Vois - The Wanton Student

Chullin 128 – Why Argue About a Dangling Limb?

2011-11-04T12:55:00.001-07:00

Normally, food can become ritually impure only if it has ever previously been wet. Can the act of slaughter be considered as making the meat wet and thus ready for ritual impurity? Consider the case of a dangling limb. The slaughter of an animal prepares its dangling limb for food impurity – that is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, but Rabbi Shimon disagrees. There are six possible reasons for their disagreement.

1. Can the animal itself be considered a handle for the dangling limb? If it can, it prepares the limb for impurity.
2. Since one cannot lift the animal by its dangling limb, are they considered really connected? If yes, slaughter prepares for impurity.
3. All agree that a handle transmits impurity, but does it also transmit preparation for impurity?
4. At the time of the slaughtered nobody planned to eat the prohibited limb, and afterwards they decided to feed it to someone who disregards the prohibition. Is this effective?
5. If only the last moment of the cut accomplished slaughters, then wiping blood on the limb during slaughtered does not prepare it.
6. If the blood does not touch the limb, is it still considered as if it did?

Art: Gustave Caillebotte - Rib Of Beef

Chullin 127 - “Dangling” Limb and Flesh

2011-11-03T06:18:00.000-07:00

A “limb” consists of meat, sinews, and bones, whereas “flesh” is meat without sinews and bones. When these are completely severed from a living animal, both are forbidden to be eaten. The difference between them is that the limb is a source of impurity which it can transmit to others, while the flesh is only food, albeit forbidden, so it can receive impurity but does not generate it.

If a limb or flesh is mostly severed from an animal but not completely, they are called “dangling.” In this state, they are ready to receive the food impurity, however, as with all foods, they must first be “prepared” for it by becoming wet. If the animal is then slaughtered, the blood of the slaughtered is considered to have prepared them, even if it did not touch them.

If the animal dies without kosher slaughter, the dangling limb or flesh are considered to have been separated from it a moment prior to the animal's death. Consequently, the flesh received no impurity from the carcass, having had no contact with it, while the limb is prohibited as a limb from a live animal.

Art: Pieter Gysels- Still Life with Vegetables, Meat, Fruit and Game

Chullin 126 – An Egg of a Reptile

2011-11-01T22:30:00.000-07:00

The Torah lists eight special reptiles, such as lizard and snail, and it also includes other small animals in the list, such as weasel and mouse, calling them the collective name of “crawlers,” but we will refer to them for simplicity as reptiles.

As a rule, a “protector” of a substance conveys impurity, but only when the substance itself is accessible to touch. For example, an egg of a reptile in which an embryo has been formed is pure and does not convey impurity, because the embryo is not accessible to touch. On the other hand, if the eggshell is punctured even a small amount, it does convey impurity.

There was a species of a mouse that does not reproduce sexually but is generated spontaneously from the earth, much as maggots from decaying food. If this mouse died while it was halfway formed, with one side of it flesh and the other still earth, one who touches the flesh of it is impure, but one who touches the earth of it is pure. Rabbi Yehudah says, “One who touches the earth opposite the flesh is also impure.”

Art: Willem Van Aelst - Still-Life with Mouse and Candle

Chullin 125 – Bone with Marrow

2011-10-31T11:57:00.001-07:00

If one touches a marrow bone of a human corpse, he receives the impurity of the dead body. Actually, that is true even if the bone does not contain marrow, but since the rules below will mention specifically marrow bones, our teacher (Tanna) chose to start with it, for symmetry. As little as a barley-corn of a human bone transmits impurity. This impurity requires the ashes of the red heifer and two immersions in the mikvah, for the person to be purified.

The bone marrow of a sacrifice that became a leftover also conveys impurity. In contrast to the impurity of the human bone, this impurity is decreed by the Sages. They wanted the priests to be alacritous in their duties and eat the sacrifices on time, not leaving them over. They also wanted to prevent the priests from taking personal revenge on the people by bringing their sacrifices with the wrong intent of eating them beyond allotted time – and intent that would ruin the sacrifice. The Sages thus decreed impurity on the hand of the priests for these violations, which would deter them, since they would not be able to continue their service for the day.

Art: David The Younger Teniers - Sausage-making

Chullin 124 – Pieces of Meat on a Hide

2011-10-30T22:05:00.001-07:00

If a hide has an olive's volume of dead meat (nevelah) attached to it, that piece of meat is ritually impure. If one touches it through a sliver attached to it, the sliver acts as a handle and transmits impurity to the person. A hair on the other side of the hide is regarded as a protector to the meat and transmits impurity from it, since it goes through the hide.

If there were two half-olive volumes of meat attached to the hide, they add up when they are carried, and thus transmit impurity to the one who carries the hide. However, if one touches them, even at the same time, he does not become impure, because these are two separate acts of contact – these are the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says that the two half-olive volumes of meat are nullified by the hide and do not transmit impurity at all. That is because through his actions of separating meat from the hide, the butcher showed that he does not consider the pieces significant. Even Rabbi Akiva agrees that if one stuck the two pieces of meat on a splinter and moved them, he becomes impure.

Art: Bartolomeo Passerotti - The Butcher's Shop

Chullin 123 – Flaying

2011-10-30T07:27:00.000-07:00

The hide of an animal, although not in the same category as its flesh, can nevertheless transmit ritual impurity to and from the animal. In the case of a kosher animal, a person might be impure, and he may transmit his impurity to the carcass. In the case of a non-kosher animal, its meat is ritually impure, and it may transmit impurity to the person working with it.

If one is flaying a dead animal, whether domestic or wild, kosher or non-kosher, small or large, and his goal is to make a spread out of it, he first cuts the hide from head to hindquarters. The beginning of flaying is the hardest, and until he peels enough hide to grasp the carcass, the hide is considered a handle, and it transmits impurity both ways. If he wants to make a leather flask and strips the hide whole from the neck, the hardest is flaying the breast, so until the breast the hide is considered a handle and it conveys impurity. However, if in flaying for a flask, he begins from the hind legs, then all of the flayed hide is considered a handle, until he flays the breast.

Art: Vincent Van Gogh - Still Life With Four Stone Bottles Flask And White Cup

Chullin 122 – The Skin

2011-10-29T22:15:00.001-07:00

The hide of an animal is normally not considered as flesh, since it is tough and inedible. Therefore, though the meat connected to it may carry the impurity of dead meat (nevelah), the hide itself does not carry this impurity.

In contrast, the skin of the creatures discussed below is treated as their flesh. The first one is that of a human. Thus, the skin of a human corpse conveys corpse impurity. Incidentally, the human skin is prohibited for consumption, like its flesh. Actually, a corpse is prohibited for all benefit.

The skin of the domestic pig is soft and is commonly eaten, and is thus treated as flesh, and according to Rabbi Yehudah also the skin of a wild pig. Other skins are: the skin of the hump of a tender camel, the soft skin of the head of a tender calf, the skin of the hooves, the skin of the pudendum, the skin of a fetus, and the skin of the eight reptiles mentioned in the Torah.

If any of these skins were worked into leather, they become ritually pure, except for human skin. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri does not consider the skin of the eight reptiles as flesh.

Art: Eugène-Alexis Girardet - Camel Train By An Oasis At Dawn

Chullin 121 – A Jew Slaughters a Non-Kosher Animal, a Non-Jew Slaughters a Kosher Animal

2011-10-27T21:50:00.000-07:00

When a Jew slaughters a kosher animal, it is considered dead, even while it is convulsing. The Sages later prohibited eating meat from a convulsing animal, but the fact remains that it is already considered food, which makes it susceptible to ritual impurity. Should it, while convulsing, touch a dead lizard, it would acquire the ritual impurity of food.

If a Jew slaughters a non-kosher animal, then while it is convulsing, it cannot be eaten by anybody: by a Jew, because it is non-kosher, and by a non-Jew, because slaughter does not make it permitted for him, and he must wait till the animal completely dies. Nevertheless, if a Jew slaughters a non-kosher on behalf of a non-Jew, then, since the Jew's intention is to prepare it as food for the non-Jew, it, too, is susceptible to ritual impurity of foods while it is convulsing. Thus, paradoxically, it cannot be eaten, but it is already considered food. The same would be if a non-Jew slaughters a kosher animal.

If one sodomizes a convulsing animal, he is liable, since it is considered partially alive, as proved by the absence of the impurity of dead meat until it dies.

Art: Simon Van Den Berg - Minding the animals

Chullin 120 – “Eating” Liquids

2011-10-26T21:27:00.001-07:00

Previously we learned that gravy combines with meat for the volume of an egg, necessary to convey ritual impurity. Rava said, “Gravy is the fat that rises to the top of meat sauce.” Abbaye said to him, “That would be food in its own right, not only in combination with meat! Rather, it is congealed glaze, which people don't eat by itself, but only with meat.” Why does it have to be congealed? Didn't Resh Lakish say that salad dressing combines with the salad to transgress the fast of Yom Kippur? – That would not be a contradiction: on Yom Kippur all depends on alleviating the affliction of hunger, and the dressing helps that, whereas only congealed glaze combines with foods.

If one cooked blood to make it solid and then ate it, or if he dissolved the prohibited fat and then ate that, he is liable. Now, we understand about blood: by his actions he showed that he values it as solid and it has the status of food in his eyes, but the fat is only prohibited to eat, not to drink!? As Resh Lakish explained, the extra word “that soul” prohibits drinking the fat.

Art: Aurelio Zingoni - The Hungry Chimney Sweep

Chullin 119 – Handles And Protectors

2011-10-25T06:21:00.001-07:00

Earlier we saw that there can be light and strict impurity. Light impurity is that of foods: it requires the larger volume of an egg to be transmitted, and it can be transmitted only to other foods. Strict impurity is that of dead meat (nevelah): it requires a smaller volume of an olive to be transmitted, and it can make ritually impure even people and utensils.

Furthermore, impurity can be transmitted not only through direct contact with the item, but also through contact with its handle or its protector. A handle is an appendage that can be used to grasp the item, such as the stem of a fruit. A protector is an appendage that protects the item, such as the peel of a fruit.

Thus, if the source of impurity touches the stem or peel of a susceptible fruit, impurity is delivered to the fruit via its attached handle or protector, even though they are not food and would not be susceptible to impurity in their own right. Conversely, if the stem or peel of an impure fruit touches a susceptible item, the impurity is delivered to the item via the fruit's handle or protector.

Art: Ignace Henri Jean Fantin-Latour - Still Life, Hyacinths and Fruit

Chullin 118 – The Hide And The Gravy

2011-10-24T11:07:00.001-07:00

Any amount of food can become ritually impure, but to transmit impurity further, it needs to have a volume of at least an egg's volume. This impurity will be only secondary, since intrinsically food does not possess impurity.

In contrast, if an animal died by itself, or even if it was killed, but not by the method of shechitah, then its meat is intrinsically impure, and it can contaminate other foods. To be significant, the amount of dead animal's meat must measure at least an olive volume.

The following parts of the animal combine with its meat in order to reach the egg's volume, a pre-requisite for the food to transmit impurity: the hide, the gravy, the sediment, the shreds, the bones, the ligaments, the horns, and the hooves. The hide adds up, because it serves as a protector for the meat. The gravy is the juice that exudes from the meat. It is not eaten by itself, but it is eaten with the meat. The same refers to the other parts. However, since they are not really food, they do not add up to the olive's volume, required for the dead animal's meat impurity.

Art: Pieter Aertsen - Butcher's Stall