Bechorot 61 – One's Agent Should Only Help

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

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 58 – Three Dates for Animal Tithes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 50 – Shekel, Selah, and Other Currencies

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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