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

Bechorot 39 – Eye Exam for Firstborn Animals

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

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

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

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

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

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, Shmita, 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?

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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?

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?

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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...

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

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

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?

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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