Commentary for Bekhorot 112:41

זה חלקו המגיעו משעה ראשונה לכך

Said R''Anan: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When we say that when they divided and then became partners they are exempt from tithing.');">²⁸</span> is meant only when they divided kids against he-goats [in accordance with their value] and he-goats against kids [in accordance with their value]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in that case one cannot say that this is the part which was due from his father's inheritance from the beginning, because at the death of their father, each brother acquired a half of the kids and a half of the goats. Consequently, the animals which were present at the time of the division of the estate are not subject to the tithe, as they come under the law of animals bought, while those which are born subsequently, are exempt on account of the brothers becoming partners.');">²⁹</span> but where they divided kids against kids and he-goats against he-goats one can say: 'This is the portion which was his from the outset'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because we hold the principle of bererah (retrospective designation; v. Glos.) and therefore each brother's share is still regarded as an inheritance, even after the brothers became partners again. Consequently, the animals born before the dividing up of the estate are not considered as animals bought to be exempted from tithing, nor are those that are born subsequently considered as born to brothers who hold the status of partners.');">³⁰</span> But R'Nahman says: Even if they divided kids against kids and he-goats against he-goats we do not say: 'This was the part which was his at the outset'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For we do not hold the principle of bererah. Therefore at first when the division takes place the animals are regarded as bought, and those born later are regarded as born to brothers who hold the status of partners.');">³¹</span> And R'Eleazar also says:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The difference between R. Eleazar and R. Johanan is in principle the same as that between R. Anan and R. Nahman.');">³²</span> This is meant only when they divided nine large animals against ten small<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or lean ones (R. Gershom) .');">³³</span> ones [according to their value], or ten small animals against nine large ones. But if they divided nine animals against nine or ten animals against ten, one can say: 'This is the part which was his from the outset'. But R'Johanan says: Even if they divided nine animals against nine or ten animals against ten, one does not say: 'This is the part which was his at the outset'.

Explore commentary for Bekhorot 112:41. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.