053a - מעשר בהמה פרק תשיעי בכורות דף נג, ע"א

Chapter Nine – Maaser Beheimah

MISHNAH

Maaser beheimah (the animal tithe) applies in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael,^[1]

in the time of the Beis HaMikdash and not in the time of the Beis HaMikdash,

to chullin, but not to consecrated animals.^[2]

And it applies to cattle and to flocks, but they are not tithed from one for the other.^[3]

To sheep and to goats, and they are tithed from one for the other.

מתני' מעשר בהמה כו' - “To sheep and to goats” – that is to say: and it applies to sheep and goats.

To new and to old, but they are not tithed from one for the other.

חדש - Those born after Elul.^[4]

ישן - Those born before Elul.

ואין מתעשרין חדש וישן מזה על זה - As it explains in the Gemara.

For it would have been logical: if new and old, which are not kilayim with each other, are not tithed from one for the other, then sheep and goats, which are kilayim with each other – is it not logical that they should not be tithed from one for the other?^[5]

The Torah says (Vayikra 27): “and flock” – implying that all flock is one.^[6]

GEMARA

Shall we say that our Mishnah is not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva?

גמ' לימא מתני' - Which teaches that it applies outside Eretz Yisrael.

For it was taught: Rabbi Akiva says: One might think that a person may bring up maaser beheimah from outside Eretz Yisrael and offer it?

The Torah says (Devarim 12): “And you shall bring there your burnt offerings and your sacrifices and your tithes.”

The verse speaks of two tithes: one the animal tithe and one the grain tithe.

מעשר דגן - Applies only in Eretz Yisrael, as we say in the first perek of Kiddushin (37a): “Every mitzvah that is an obligation of the land applies only in Eretz Yisrael,” and we derive it from verses.^[7]

From a place from which you bring up the grain tithe you bring up the animal tithe, and from a place from which you do not bring up the grain tithe you do not bring up the animal tithe!

You may even say [it follows] Rabbi Akiva: here [he speaks of] being offered, there [the Mishnah speaks of] becoming holy.

ליקרב - Not [of] becoming holy. And our Mishnah, which teaches “applies,” means becoming holy, and it explains shortly for what law it is holy.

This is also precise, for the Tanna takes [as his source] “and you shall bring there”; learn from it.

דיקא נמי - That Rabbi Akiva excludes it [only] from being offered, since the Tanna bases his point on “and you shall bring there,” which means offering.

If so, since it is not offered, why is it holy?

To be eaten with its blemish by the owners.^[8]

במומו - That he waits until it becomes blemished, and eats them. Maaser beheimah, whether unblemished or blemished, belongs to the owners, for we find no verse that it should be given to a kohen.

“In the time of the Beis HaMikdash and not in the time of the Beis HaMikdash.”^[9]

If so, even nowadays too [it should be tithed]!^[10]

[It is] as Rav Huna [said], for Rav Huna said: “A decree because of an orphan.”^[11]

כדרב הונא דאמר - Later in this perek (58b).

גזירה משום יתום - Here too it is a decree because of an orphan, lest one bring an orphan [animal] into the pen to be tithed; for it says in the Mishnah: “All enter the pen to be tithed, except kilayim, a tereifah, one born by caesarean section, one lacking in time, and an orphan.” And Rav Huna mentioned the orphan rather than all these because there, in his statement, it is relevant to mention only the purchased [animal] and the orphan, later in this perek. An orphan is one whose mother died at the time of its birth: this one departed to death and that one departed to life.

If so, originally too it should not [have been tithed]!

מעיקרא נמי - When the Mikdash stood, let us decree because of an orphan.

Rather, it is possible [to prevent this] by a public announcement.^[12]

אלא - The reason we did not decree in the time of the Beis HaMikdash is that it was possible through an announcement of beis din that no one should bring an orphan into the pen to be tithed. Therefore nowadays too, let them set it aside, and it is possible through an announcement.

Here too it is possible by a public announcement!

Rather, Rabbah said: Because of a stumbling-block.^[13]

משום תקלה - For we have nothing on which to offer it, and he must keep it until it becomes blemished, and he comes through it to a stumbling-block of shearing and work, or he slaughters it without a blemish.

And from where do you say that we are concerned for a stumbling-block?

[For it was taught]: “One may not consecrate, nor make valuations, nor declare cherem at this time.^[14]

ואין מחרימין - For cherem is holy like hekdesh, as it is written: “every cherem is most holy,” etc.^[15]

And if one consecrated, made a valuation or declared cherem: an animal is to be uprooted;

תיעקר - So that one should not come through it to a stumbling-block.

fruit, clothing and vessels are to rot; money and metal vessels – he should take them to the Dead Sea.^[16]

And what is uprooting?

He locks the door before it, and it dies by itself.”

מתה מאיליה - Of hunger.

If so, a firstborn too should not become holy!

Does the firstborn depend on us? It is holy from the womb!^[17]

בכור בדידן תליא - [Said] in astonishment.

This is what he means: Let him transfer their ears to a gentile,^[18] so that they should not become holy at all!^[19]

הכי קאמר - This is what we are asking: since you are concerned for a stumbling-block, let him transfer the ears of the mothers to idolaters, so that there should be the hand of an idolater in the middle, and they will not come to [the sanctity of] the firstborn.

Tosfos

מעשר בהמה כו' - Everywhere it is usual to mention bechor, maaser and pesach [together], for they are equal in their [blood] applications.^[20] Therefore he teaches maaser after bechor; and pesach, whose laws are many, he teaches in [Maseches] Pesachim.

נוהג בארץ ובחוצה לארץ - What we say at the beginning of [Perek] Shilu’ach HaKen (Chullin 138b), that wherever [a Mishnah] teaches “in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael” it is not needed, apart from reishis hagez^[21] – that refers to those taught in that tractate; but here it is needed.

רבי עקיבא אומר יכול יעלה אדם מעשר כו' - In Temurah, at the end of [Perek] Elu Kodashim (21b), Rabbi Akiva also says this: that a firstborn brought from outside Eretz Yisrael is not offered. For there it establishes the Mishnah in Maseches Challah (4:11), that Ben Antigonus brought up firstborns from Bavel and they did not accept them from him, as following Rabbi Akiva.

כרב הונא דאמר רב הונא גזירה משום יתום - Rav Huna’s [statement] is later in our perek (58b), [at] “How does one tithe them,” and there it is not relevant to decree because of kilayim, a tereifah and one born by caesarean section; but here it is relevant to decree because of those, just as because of an orphan. Rather, since Rav Huna mentioned it there, he mentions it here. However, it is puzzling that he did not mention the purchased [animal] and the orphan as he mentioned there. Therefore it seems to me to explain that here he mentions specifically the orphan, because people err about it more than about the others, since they are not expert; for an orphan too is found only where this one departed to death and that one departed to life.

אלא משום תקלה - It implies here that maaser beheimah does not apply nowadays because of a stumbling-block. And Rabbeinu Tam asked from Perek Bameh Beheimah Yotzah (Shabbos 54b), that Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah used to tithe twelve thousand calves from his herds every year, and he lived after the Churban: for Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, who was Nasi, was after the Churban, and after him Rabban Gamliel, and in the days of Rabban Gamliel they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah Nasi, as stated in Perek Tefillas HaShachar (Berachos 27b), and he was eighteen years old. And one cannot explain at all that it speaks of the tenth that is given to the king, like arnona;^[22] and it is also forced to explain that he had a guardian when he was a minor, who tithed. Perhaps they did not abolish maaser beheimah so close to the Churban.

ואין מחרימין בזמן הזה - Even according to the one who says (Arachin 29a) that unspecified charamim go to the kohanim,^[23] even where he specified [them] for the kohanim there is reason to decree because of a stumbling-block, for as long as they are in the owners’ hands they are hekdesh, as stated above at the beginning of [Perek] Kol Pesulei HaMukdashin (32a). And in the first perek of Avodah Zarah (13a) Rashi explained that he holds unspecified charamim go to Temple upkeep; or else, as we explained. And what Ulla said in Arachin at the end of Perek HaMakdish Sadehu (29a), “Had I been there, I would have given it all to the kohen,” for he holds unspecified charamim go to the kohanim, regarding that man who declared his property cherem – one can distinguish that this was with land. For apart from this, Rabbeinu Tam asks: Rav Yehudah, who holds there that unspecified charamim go to Temple upkeep – how did he permit there by redemption, that he should take four zuz and throw them into the river? And Rabbeinu Tam says that there it was land, for if you forbid them with a permanent prohibition, all the more would one come to a stumbling-block. However, it is difficult, for it implies there that it speaks of movables, since it asks on it from what was taught, that the field of charamim applies only when the Yovel applies, and answers: “This is with land, that is with movables.” One can answer that land outside Eretz Yisrael is called movables, as it concludes there that it is like movables. And although it says “And the incident of Pumbedisa was with land too,” which implies from “too” that it was with land and with movables, nevertheless he permitted only the land. All the more does it fit well now, for from this the Gemara takes it as obvious that the incident was also with land, for if there had been only movables there, he would not have permitted them.

מעות וכלי מתכות יוליך הנאה לים המלח - It implies specifically to the Dead Sea, and other rivers do not suffice. And so it implies in Perek Kol Sha’ah (Pesachim 28a), that [throwing into] other rivers requires grinding, but into the Dead Sea one throws it as it is. And similarly elsewhere: [if] one set aside money for his nezirus and died, we say “he should take the benefit to the Dead Sea.” And it is puzzling, for in that incident in Arachin (29a) it says “take four zuz and throw them into the river,” and similarly in Yoma, Perek Hotzi’u Lo (55b), it says “let us take four zuz and throw them into the river, and let the rest be permitted.” Perhaps there it speaks of [throwing] after grinding. And now, when a person comes to redeem a kerem revai or neta revai,^[24] he must grind those zuz, redeem onto them, and throw them into the river.

ואי זהו עיקור נועל דלת כו' - With a firstborn nowadays we would not permit doing so. Not only an Israelite, who must fulfil the mitzvah of giving and wait for a kohen who will agree to accept it, even more than thirty days for a small animal and fifty for a large one – for what we learned (above 26b), “How long is one obliged to tend [it],”^[25] applies even if a kohen came to accept it within this period, as it teaches: “If the kohen said to him within the period, ‘Give it to me,’ he should not give it” – but even if the kohen accepted it, the kohen is not permitted to put it into a cell, for nowhere is this taught regarding a firstborn. And above (35a) we learned regarding a male of ewes, “old, with its wool hanging down,” which implies that they used to wait until it acquired a blemish. One can distinguish between a firstborn and one who consecrates nowadays: with a firstborn, which is permitted once it acquires a blemish without redemption, there is a loss of sanctified [animals] if he puts it into a cell; but one who consecrates – where even if it acquired a blemish it is not permitted without redemption, and if he redeems it he must throw the money to waste – therefore when he puts it into a cell now there is no loss of sanctified [animals].

Notes

1. 1. Maaser beheimah: each year, every tenth animal born in a person’s herd or flock, counted one by one as they leave the pen, becomes holy (Vayikra 27:32). Its blood and fats are offered on the altar, and the owner eats the meat.
2. 2. The Gemara explains this clause on the next amud [Bechoros 53b].
3. 3. Cattle and flocks are counted separately: one cannot make up a group of ten from both kinds, nor take one kind as the tithe for the other.
4. 4. The animal tithe is counted by years. According to Rabbi Meir, the year for maaser beheimah begins on the first of Elul (Rosh Hashanah 2a); animals of one year are not tithed together with those of another.
5. 5. Kilayim: different species, which may not be crossbred. Sheep and goats are two species for kilayim, yet for the tithe the Torah treats them as one.
6. 6. The verse is Vayikra 27:32: “And all the tithe of the cattle and the flock.” The single word “flock” covers sheep and goats together.
7. 7. An obligation of the land is a mitzvah that depends on the land’s produce, such as terumah and the tithes of grain. Such mitzvos apply only in Eretz Yisrael (Kiddushin 37a).
8. 8. Maaser beheimah may not be sold or redeemed (Vayikra 27:33). Once it becomes blemished it is slaughtered and eaten by its owners; it is not given to a kohen.
9. 9. The Mishnah’s clause means that animals become holy as maaser even after the Churban, when there is no altar to offer them on; such an animal is eaten by its owners once it becomes blemished.
10. 10. In the time of the Amoraim the animal tithe was not being set aside. The Gemara asks why not, since the Mishnah says it applies even without the Beis HaMikdash.
11. 11. Rav Huna’s statement comes later in this perek [Bechoros 58b], on the counting in the pen: “a decree because of a purchased [animal] and because of an orphan.” An orphan is an animal whose mother died at its birth; it is exempt from the tithe.
12. 12. A public announcement by beis din, warning owners not to bring an orphan animal into the pen.
13. 13. Takalah, a stumbling-block: with no altar, a holy animal must be kept until it becomes blemished, and meanwhile its owner may come to shear it, work it, or slaughter it without a blemish – all forbidden with sanctified animals.
14. 14. Makdish: consecrating property to the Beis HaMikdash. Ma’arich: vowing to give the fixed valuation (erech) that the Torah sets for a person (Vayikra 27:1–8). Macharim: declaring property cherem, devoted to the kohanim or to the Beis HaMikdash.
15. 15. Vayikra 27:28.
16. 16. The Dead Sea: whatever is thrown there is lost for good, so that no one can come to benefit from the sanctified money or metal.
17. 17. A firstborn becomes holy by itself at birth (“the first issue of the womb”), whereas maaser becomes holy only through the owner’s counting.
18. 18. An animal in which a gentile has a share is exempt from the law of the firstborn. By transferring the mother’s ear to a gentile before she gives birth, the owner prevents the young from becoming holy.
19. 19. The Gemara’s answer comes on the next amud [Bechoros 53b].
20. 20. Their blood is put on the altar with a single application, against the base (Zevachim 56b).
21. 21. Reishis hagez: the first shearing of the sheep, given to a kohen (Devarim 18:4).
22. 22. Arnona: a levy of produce or animals paid to the king.
23. 23. Arachin 28b records a dispute: an unspecified cherem goes to the kohanim (the Chachamim) or to the upkeep of the Beis HaMikdash (Rabbi Yehudah ben Beseira).
24. 24. Kerem revai, neta revai: the fruit of a vineyard or other planting in its fourth year, holy like maaser sheni; it may be redeemed onto coins.
25. 25. The Mishnah above [Bechoros 26b]: an Israelite must tend a firstborn thirty days for a small animal and fifty for a large one before giving it to a kohen.