Комментарий к Бехорот 2:11

הלוקח עובר פרתו. אע"פ שאינו רשאין – to sell him a large animal (see Tractate Bekhorot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1 and Tractate Avodah Zarah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 6).

Introduction Chapter two begins to discuss the first-born of a pure animal, such as a cow. This first-born is holy and must be sacrificed and the meat is eaten by the priests. If it is blemished, it must still be given to the priest, but it need not be sacrificed.

[An Israelite] who buys a fetus of a cow belonging to a non-Jew or who sells one to him, although this is not permitted, or who forms a partnership with him, or who receives [an animal] from him to look after or who gives [his cow] to him to look after, is exempt from the [law of the] bekhor, for it says: [“I sanctified to Me all the firstborn] in Israel,” (Numbers 3:13) but not in non-Jews. This is the same exact halakhah as was taught in the 1:1. See there for commentary.

Priests and Levites are subject [to the law of the first-born pure animal]. They are not exempt from [the law of] the first-born of a clean animal, but only of a first-born son and the first-born of a donkey. Priests and Levites are exempt from two of the three types of bekhorot the first born of a donkey and their own first-born son. They are, however, liable for the first-born of a pure animal. If a priest or Levite owns a pure animal and it gives birth for the first time and the offspring is male, it must be sacrificed. Then the priest eats the meat, as is always the case.

כל הקדשים שקדם מום קבוע להקדשן כו'. וכל שקדם הקדשן את מומן – these two clauses/sections, we explained above in Tractate Hullin [Chapter 10, Mishnah 2 and also Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 9, Mishnah 3].

All consecrated animals whose permanent physical blemish preceded their consecration and were then redeemed:
Are subject to the law of the firstling and to the priestly gifts,
And when they become like hullin [by being redeemed] they may be shorn and may be put to work.
And their young and their milk are permitted after they have been redeemed.
And he who slaughtered them outside the sanctuary is not liable.
And they do not render what is substituted for them [holy].
And if they died they may be redeemed, except for the firstling and the tithe of cattle.
This mishnah and tomorrow’s mishnah are an exact replica of Hullin 10:2. They are brought here in Tractate Bekhorot because they have some rules concerning bekhorot. My commentary, including the following introduction, is the same as that found in Hullin.
An animal that has a permanent physical blemish cannot be sacrificed. Our mishnah distinguishes between cases where the blemish preceded the consecration of the animal, versus cases where the consecration preceded the blemish.
If the animal had a permanent blemish before it was consecrated, then the animal itself doesn’t become holy. Instead, the consecrator has in reality dedicated the value of the animal to the Temple. Thus this animal is treated like a hullin, non-sacred, animal, except that it has to be redeemed before any use can be made of it. If it gives birth to a firstling, the firstling is holy, as is the case with a hullin animal. When one slaughters it, he must give the shoulder, cheeks and stomach to the priest. After it becomes hullin by being redeemed, it may be shorn and work may be performed with it. Similarly, its young and its milk are not prohibited. One who slaughters it outside the Temple is not liable for he has slaughtered a non-sacred animal. If one tries to exchange it for another animal, the other animal is not holy. If the animal dies, it will still need to be redeemed, so that its meat can be given to dogs.
The only exception to all of these rules is if this animal that had a permanent blemish is itself a firstling or a tithed animal. The firstling is holy from the moment it is born even if it has a blemish. Similarly, even blemished animals must be tithed (see Leviticus 27:33). Thus these animals are holy regardless of whether they have blemishes and therefore they cannot be treated as the animals above were treated.

All [consecrated animals] whose consecration preceded their permanent, or their impermanent blemish [preceded] their consecration and subsequently they contracted a permanent blemish, and they were redeemed:
Are exempt from the law of the firstling, and from priestly gifts;
And they are not like unconsecrated animals to be shorn or put to work;
And [even] after they have been redeemed their young and their milk are forbidden;
And he who slaughtered them outside the sanctuary is liable;
And they render what was substituted for them [holy],
And if they died they must be buried.
An animal that is first consecrated and then becomes blemished is a consecrated animal, even though it cannot be sacrificed. Similarly, if an animal has a passing blemish, and then it is consecrated, it is a consecrated animal. These animals must be redeemed, and the money used to buy a new sacrifice. However, they remain consecrated even after redemption.
Therefore, their offspring is exempt from the laws of tithe and firstling, as are the offspring of all consecrated animals. One who slaughters them after their redemption need not give the shoulder, cheeks and stomach to the priest. Even after they are redeemed, it is forbidden to shear them or to perform any work with them. Their offspring and their milk remain prohibited, even after they have been redeemed. Indeed, it seems like the only thing that can be done with them is to eat them.
Our version of the mishnah says that if one slaughters them outside of the Temple, he is liable. This is difficult, because what it he supposed to do with them he can’t offer them as sacrifices nor can he slaughter them outside of the Temple. There is a version which reads “exempt” instead of “liable.” However, the Talmud reads “liable” and explains that this mishnah is according to Rabbi Akiva who holds that if an animal with a blemish was put onto the altar, it is not to be removed (Zevahim 9:3). Thus, although this animal should not be sacrificed, if it is put on the altar, it can be sacrificed.
If one exchanges this animal for another, the other animal also becomes holy. Consecrated animals cannot be exchanged one for the other, and if one tries to do so, the original animal remains holy and the new animal becomes holy.
Finally, if they die before they are redeemed, they must be buried, because no one can derive benefit from their meat.

המקבל צאן ברזל מן הנכרי (he receives a guaranteed investment from the heathen – which is secure from any loss) – that the heathen placed his cattle to him (i.e., an Israelite) for fixed compensation and to give him those monies for up to ten years, whether they (i.e., the animals) died or lost value, and those offspring that they will have until that time will be [divided] between them.

Introduction Our mishnah discusses a Jew who receives a flock of sheep or goats from a non-Jew under “iron terms.” What this means is that all responsibility for the flock lies with the Jew, and he pays the non-Jew a fixed sum per year in return for use of the flock and the use of the offspring. Alternatively, instead of paying a fixed sum, the Jew and the non-Jew split the profits and the offspring.

וולדות פטורין – from being firstling. Their offspring of those sheep when they grow and bear animals for the first time will be exempt from the law of firstlings. For if he does not give money to the heathen, he will seize the animal, and if he does not find the animal, he will seize the offspring, it is found that the heathen has a connection with the offspring. Therefore, the firstborn of these offspring is exempt from the law of firstlings, for all that the heathen has a hand in/connection to its mother is exempt from the [law of] firstlings. But when the offspring of the offspring bear animals for the first time , that is the fourth [generation] of the guaranteed investment, they shall be given to the Kohen, for all that much the heathen does not have a hand in/connection to seize the offspring of the offspring.

If one receives flock from a non-Jew on “iron terms” their offspring are exempt [from the law of] the first born. In mishnah one we learned that the flock itself is exempt from the laws of the first born. Our mishnah teaches that if one of the offspring of the original flock gives birth, that offspring is also exempt from the law of the first born, meaning its first born is not holy. The reason for this exemption is that if the Jew reneges on his payment to the non-Jew, the non-Jew can take the offspring as part of his payment. This means that they are in some sense owned by the non-Jew and as we have learned, animals owned by non-Jews are not subject to the law of the first-born.

העמיד ולדות תחת אמותיהן ולדי ולדות פטורין ולדי ולדי ולדות חייבים – if [the Israelite] stipulated that the offspring were in place of their mothers, when he (i.e., the Israelite) made an opening for the heathen for him to have power over the offspring and stated to him: “If the animals will die, you will take the offspring that reach my portion. Now, the power of the hand of the heathen is stronger and is connected to one generation more than of the first [alone]. Therefore, the offspring of the offspring of animals is a guaranteed investment, that when the animals gave birth for the first time, they are exempt from the [law relating] to firstborn animals, since the hand of the heathen belongs to/is attached to them. The offspring of the offspring of the offspring, when they first give birth, that is the fifth [generation] of guaranteed investment, should be given to the Kohen.

But the offspring of their offspring are liable [to the law of the first born]. However, the offspring of the offspring are liable meaning that the first born offspring born of this offspring are holy and must be treated as such.

If [the Israelite] put the offspring in the place of their mothers, then the offspring of the offspring are exempt, but the offspring of the offspring of the offspring are liable. If the Jew tells the non-Jew that he is going to pay him back not with the original flock but with its offspring, then the exemption is extended another generation, to the first born of the offspring of the offspring. (It might help you to use names here, Debbie, born of Charlene, born of Becca, born of Alice apologies to those with these names!). Again, since the non-Jew can claim these animals (Charlene), they are considered to be in his possession in order to exempt their offspring (Debbie).

שאחריותן לנכרי -for always, everything that is found the Gentile grabs hold of. But the Halakha is not according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even for ten generations the offspring are exempt [from the law of the first born] since they are pledged to the non-Jew. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that all subsequent offspring are pledged to the non-Jew, no matter how many generations removed. Therefore, they are all exempt from the laws of the first born (so Eunice is exempt, as if Freda, and Gladys and Harriet, and Iris would you like me to go to Z for Zoey, my daughter’s name?).

רחל שילדה כמין עז – even though that both of them are species they are liable for [the law] of the firstborn, nevertheless, if it is not similar to its mother, it is exempt from [the law] of the firstborn. As is it written (Numbers 18:17): “But the firstlings of cattle, [sheep or goats may not be redeemed; they are consecrated],” until it [the cattle/ox] and its first-born is a cattle/ox.

If a ewe gave birth to what looked like a kid, or a [female] goat gave birth to what looked like a lamb, it is exempt from [the law of] the first born. As we learned in connection with the donkey, in order for the offspring to be liable for the law of the first born, it must be of the same species as its mother. If the offspring of a sheep looks like a goat, or the offspring of a goat looks like a sheep, it is exempt.

ואם יש בו מקצת סימנים – that it is similar to its mother, until that it is recognized in them that it is from the same species, it is liable.

But if it some of the signs of [its mother] it is liable [to the law of the first born]. If it looks a bit like its mother, then it is liable.

שנאמר הזכרים לה' – [the word] "זכרים"/males – implies two.

Introduction This mishnah discusses cases where the ewe seems to give birth to two first-borns at the same time.

אי אפשר – to ascertain exactly their two heads came out as one (see Tractate Bekhorot 17a), but rather, the one came out first and we don’t know which of them it was.

If a ewe which never before had given birth bore two males and both heads came forth simultaneously: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: both belong to the priest for scripture says: “The males shall be the Lord’s” (Exodus 13:12). But the sages say: it is impossible, therefore one remains [with the Israelite] and the other is for the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean both males are considered to be first-borns and both are given to the priest. This is derived midrashically from the plural use of “males” in Exodus 13. The other rabbis, however, disagree with Rabbi Yose and say that this is impossible (doesn’t sound too pleasant for the sheep either). Rather, one must have been the first-born, even if we don’t know which one it was. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva debate about how we determine which of the two animals goes to the priest. According to Rabbi Tarfon, the priest can choose which of the twins he wants. Rabbi Akiva says that they estimate the value of the two kids, and the priest and the owner divide the amount. However, the Tosefta and the Talmud state that the owner keeps the fatter, more valuable of the two kids. This is because of the principle, “the burden of proof is upon the claimant.” Since the priest cannot prove that the better of the two is his, he can only take the lesser.

בורר לו את היפה – that in general, the better and [more] healthy one goes out at the beginning.

The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. The animal kept by the owner cannot simply be eaten, because it might be a first-born. Therefore, the solution is to let it become blemished and then it can be eaten by its owners. When he slaughters it he must give the priestly gifts, the shoulder, the cheeks and the stomach, to the priest. For if the animal was a first-born then he should have given it all to the priest. And if the animal is not a first-born, then he is liable to give the priestly gifts, as is always the case when one slaughters animals (see chapter ten of Hullin). Rabbi Yose exempts. We will see Rabbi Yose’s reasoning below in mishnah eight.

משמנים ביניהם – the owners and the Kohen do not have an advantage one on the other in their division other than the [permitted] fat, for the Israelite takes the fat and the leaves the lean one to the Kohen, for he who wants to exact [compensation] from his fellow bears the burden of proof (see Tractate Bava Kamma, Chapter 3, Mishnah 11). And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva (see Talmud Bekhorot 18a).

If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If one of them dies, Rabbi Tarfon says that they can split the value of the living one. Rabbi Akiva holds that since the priest cannot prove that the one that died was the second born he has no right to claim the live one. Again, Rabbi Akiva employs the principle of “the burden of proof is upon the claimant.”

והשני – that remains to the Israelite, it should pasture until a blemish befalls it and afterwards it may be consumed, for it is a doubtful firstling , therefore, it is not slaughtered as pure. But that which belongs to the Kohen, it is not necessary to state that certainly he does not slaughter it until there should be a blemish, but we are speaking about at this time.

If it gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances]. In this case, when a male and female were born, it is possible that there is no first-born because the female might have been born first. Therefore, the priest doesn’t receive anything. The male animal must go out to pasture until it becomes blemished and after that point, the owner can eat it. He can’t eat it beforehand because it might be a bekhor.

וחייב במתנות – the Israelite, when he slaughters it, he would give to the Kohen the foreleg, jaw and maw. For whichever way you turn, if it is firstling, all of it goes to the Kohen, but if it is not a firstling, he (i.e., the owner) is liable to the priestly gifts.

ורבי יוסי פוטר – for this is as if the Kohen was worthy of it and it reached his hand but if a blemish befell it, it is given to an Israelite. And it is found that it is exempt from the priestly gifts, for since we consider it as if it came from the hand of a Kohen to an Israelite. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.

רבי טרפון אומר יחלוקו – for Rabbi Tarfon retracted from what he said above [in this Mishnah] that the Kohen selects for himself the better part, for he holds that while alive also we compromise with both of them (i.e., the Kohen and the Israelite) and divide the proceeds. For both of them have a part in both of them (i.e., the animals – the two males). Therefore, if one of them died, they should divide the living one.

רבי עקיבא אומר המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה – and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.

זכר ונקבה אין לכהן כלום – for perhaps a female [animal] came out first and he who wants to exact [compensation] from his fellow bears the burden of proof. But here, even Rabbi Tarfon admits, that there, when he disagrees because certainly that one [animal] goes to the Kohen, therefore it strengthens one’s right to divide it equally, but here, his power is lessened for perhaps the issue of first-born status is not connected at all. But however, it should go to pasture until a blemish befalls it and afterwards, he can consume it, for it’s a doubt.

Introduction Our mishnah is similar to yesterday’s mishnah except that today’s mishnah deals with two sheep that had never given birth before, whereas yesterday’s mishnah dealt with one ewe that had twins. Most of this mishnah is the same as that which we learned yesterday, so I refer the reader to my commentary there.

If two ewes which had never previously given birth bore two males, both belong to the priest. If both of the first-borns are males, then obviously, both go to the priest.

[If they gave birth] to a male and a female, the male belongs to the priest. If one is a male and the other is a female, then we know that the male is a first-born and it goes to the priest.

[If they gave birth] to two males and a female, one remains with him, and the other belongs to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. In this case, one male is certainly a first-born, but we don’t know which one. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva again debate how we determine who gets which of the two. For an explanation, see yesterday’s mishnah.

The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. This is identical to the debate in yesterday’s mishnah.

If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. See yesterday’s mishnah.

[If they gave birth to] two females and a male or two males and two females, the priest receives nothing in such circumstances. If they gave birth to two females, it is possible that there was no male first-born. Therefore, the priest doesn’t receive anything. The Tosefta adds that the males must go out to pasture and become blemished before they can be eaten. This is because they might be first-borns and all doubtful first-borns must become blemished before they can be eaten.

If one [of the ewes] had given birth and the other had never previously given birth and they bore two males, one remains with him and the other belongs to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them.
The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. For Rabbi Yose says: wherever the priest receives [an animal] in its place, he is exempt from the priestly gifts. Rabbi Meir however makes him liable.
If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant.
If they gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances].
This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday and the previous day’s mishnah. Much of the explanation for the mishnah can be found there.
Section one: Again, we have here a situation where we know that one of two males is a first-born and one is not. One goes to the priest and again Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva argue about how we determine who gets which animal. See mishnah six for an explanation.
Section two: Most of this section is the same as in mishnah six. We learn here, finally, the reason that Rabbi Yose exempts the animal that stays with the owner from being liable for the priestly gifts. Whenever a priest receives one animal in return for another, the animal that is exchanged is exempt. In this case the priest receives one animal in return for giving away the other animal. It is as if he received the animal and then exchanged it for another. Any animal owned by a priest is exempt from the priestly gifts, and therefore the animal that goes to the original owner is exempt. Rabbi Meir disagrees and says that he is still liable.
Sections three and four: These are the same as the end of mishnah six. See there for an explanation.

יוצא דפן (a fetus extracted by means of the cesarean section) – its mother was operated upon by a section and they removed the fetus through its walls.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with an animal born through what is today called a cesarean section. The term the Mishnah uses is “one who came out through the wall” because this animal was taken out through the wall of its mother’s stomach.

והבא אחריו – that which is born after it through the path of the womb.

With regard to [an animal] that was born through a cesarean section and the first born which came after it:
Rabbi Tarfon says: both go out to pasture until blemished and are eaten with their blemishes by the owners. Rabbi Tarfon believes that both animals are doubtful first borns. The one born through cesarean section was the first born and the second one was the one who opened its mother’s womb, the phrase the Torah uses to describe a first born (see Exodus 13). Therefore, both must go out to pasture until they become blemished and then they may be eaten (blemishes and all) by their owners.

ירעו עד שיסתאבו – for it is doubtful to Rabbi Tarfon if the firstling of the offspring is holy even though it is not a firstling to the womb, such as a fetus extracted by means of cesarean section which is the first that is born even though it did not open up the womb. If it is a firstling to the womb, it is holy even though it is not the firstling to the offspring, as for example, that which comes after one born by means of cesarean section which is the first that opened the womb bur is not the firstling of the offspring since the one born by means of cesarian section preceded it. But from doubt, both are sent to pasture until they develop blemishes and their owners will consume them with their blemishes for perhaps, we require both [that it is the first to open the womb and the first one born] of them to be firstlings of offspring and to [the opening of] their wombs, but neither one of them is holy. But he who wants to exact [compensation] from his fellow bears the burden of proof. But for Rabbi Akiva, it is obvious to him that we require both [of these prerequisites] require, and not a single one of them is holy. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.

But Rabbi Akiva says: neither of them is a first born; the first because it did not open its mother’s womb, and the second, because another preceded it. According to Rabbi Akiva, in order for the rule of the first born to apply, the animal must be a first born and be the first to open its mother’s womb. The first born did not open its mother’s womb and the second was not the first born, so the law of the first born does not apply to either.