Bekhorot 113
האחין שחלקו לקוחות הן ומחזירין זה לזה ביובל
For R'Assi reported in the name of R'Johanan: Brothers who divide an estate are considered as purchasers and return [their respective parts] to each other in Jubilee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 52b.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ואי אשמעינן שדה לחומרא אי נמי לכתחלה אבל הכא אימא לא צריכא
I might have said that R'Johanan only holds his view in this case because the tithing of animals is compared with 'thy first-born son'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first-born of thy sons thou shalt give unto Me. Likewise thou shalt do with thine oxen etc. Ex. XXII, 28, 29.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ואם אמרת יש ברירה ליברור חד מינייהו לבהדי כלב ולשקול והנך לישתרו
But with respect to a field, only in case of a sale does the Divine Law say that it should return [to its original owner] in Jubilee, but not in the case of an inheritance or a present.
אי דשוו כולהו להדדי ה"נ
I might have said that in that case R'Johanan holds this opinion because it makes for greater stringency.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For as there is a doubt we adopt the more stringent view that the brothers are considered as buyers and thus the field returns in Jubilee, whereas in the case of the tithing of animals, if you say that the animals are considered as bought, you are adopting the more lenient view.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
הכא במאי עסקינן דלא שוו כולהו להדדי ושוי האי כלבא חד ומשהו והאי משהו משיך ואתי בכולהו:
Or indeed, a field returns in Jubilee because [after returning] it is [like] at the beginning [before the division],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since returning in Jubilee applies to a field, and therefore when this takes place we can apply the text: And ye shall return every man to his possession. We therefore say that there is no bererah in order that it should return to Jubilee.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הכל נכנסין לדיר להתעשר חוץ מן כלאים וטרפה ויוצא דופן ומחוסר זמן והיתום
but here I might have said, it is not so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because in the case of tithing animals, since the law of returning in Jubilee does not apply here, I might have said that we hold the principle of bererah and that what each of the brothers receives now is the same part which was his originally.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ר' יהושע אומר
An objection was raised: And likewise if partners divided [an estate] and one took ten lambs and the other took nine with a dog, [the lambs] taken against the dog are forbidden [for the altar]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because one of them is the exchange for the dog, and as we do not know which, therefore all are prohibited for the altar.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
דת"ר
Now if you say that we hold the principle of bererah let him pick out one lamb as the equivalent of the dog and the rest should be permitted for the altar?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since we hold the principle of bererah, then we ought to leave it to his judgement and to assume that his intention was from the beginning that the lamb he would choose would be the equivalent of the dog (Tosaf.) .');"><sup>12</sup></span>
(ויקרא כב, כז) שור או כשב פרט לכלאים או עז פרט לנדמה כי יולד פרט ליוצא דופן והיה שבעת ימים פרט למחוסר זמן תחת אמו פרט ליתום
- Said R'Ashi: If they were all of the same value,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If every lamb of the nine lambs had a companion in the ten lambs of equal value and thus it would be found that the tenth is the equivalent of the dog, then we would hold the principle of bererah.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
תחת אמו מה להלן פרט לכל השמות הללו אף כאן פרט לכל השמות הללו ומה כאן פרט לטרפה אף להלן פרט לטרפה
however, that they are not all alike in value and this dog is equal in value to one lamb plus a little and this little extends all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the nine lambs of the ten are worth more than the nine which are together with the dog and the dog worth the tenth plus a little over. Thus a portion of the value of the dog is to be found in all the opposite lambs and consequently they are ali forbidden for the altar. For example, suppose the ten lambs are each worth four and one-tenth zuz, making a total of forty-one zuz, and the dog is worth five zuz. Then the nine remaining lambs are worth thirty-six zuz or four zuz each - one-tenth of a zuz less than each of the others. Hence the dog is the equivalent of each of the ten opposite lambs plus the tenth of a zuz in each, and this tenth in each is the equivalent of a portion of the dog and therefore causes them all to be forbidden to be sacrificed being 'the price of a dog' (v. Deut. XXIII, 19) .');"><sup>16</sup></span>
(בראשית ו, יב) כי השחית כל בשר את דרכו על הארץ עבודה זרה דכתיב
Is brought forth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A continuation of the previous text. The other three texts given below are also a continuation of the same passage in Lev. XXII, 27.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
(דברים ד, טז) פן תשחיתון ועשיתם לכם פסל תמונת כל סמל תבנית זכר או נקבה
excludes the case of offspring brought forth by the caesarean section; Then it shall be seven days excludes the case of an animal too young for sacrifice; Under the dam excludes the case of an 'orphan'.
וכל שהמום פוסל בו דבר ערוה ועבודה זרה פוסלין בו וכל שאין המום פוסל בו אין דבר ערוה ועבודה זרה פוסלין בו
R'Ishmael son of R'Johanan B'Berokah says: Here it says: Under the rod,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 32, with reference to the tithing of animals.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
רובע ונרבע דבר ערוה מוקצה ונעבד עבודה זרה ואתנן דבר ערוה ומחיר איתקש לאתנן טומטום ואנדרוגינוס קסבר
all the categories<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'names', i.e., those enumerated in the Baraitha above, vis., kil'ayim, nidmeh etc.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
ספיקא הוא מיעט רחמנא גבי קדשים זכר ודאי ונקבה ודאית ולא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס מעשר נמי גמר תחת תחת מקדשים
a trefah is excluded,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because Scripture says: 'All that shall pass', thus excluding a trefah which cannot pass, since trefah includes an animal whose leg was cut from the knee and upwards; v. infra 58a.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
הכל נכנסין לדיר להתעשר חוץ מן הכלאים והטרפה דברי ר"א בר' יהודה איש כפר ברתותא שאמר משום ר' יהושע
What is the word ALL meant to include in addition? - It includes what our Rabbis taught: [An animal] which covered [a woman], that was covered [by a man] or designated for idolatrous purposes and one actually so used,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the offering of a libation between its horns (Rashi) .');"><sup>27</sup></span>
לעולם גמר וביוצא דופן
And our Tanna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Mishnah who says ALL, what is his position?');"><sup>31</sup></span> - If he draws an analogy between 'under'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Under the rod mentioned in connection with tithing.');"><sup>32</sup></span> and 'under' mentioned in connection with consecrated objects, these also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The cases of an animal designated for idolatrous purposes and one so used, an animal which covered a woman etc.');"><sup>33</sup></span> should not be tithed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For all these are disqualified in the case of dedicated objects.');"><sup>34</sup></span> And if he does not infer from the case of consecrated objects, whence does he infer these?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., an animal too young for sacrifice an orphan, etc. as not being tithed.');"><sup>35</sup></span> - One may still say that he does draw the analogy, but the Divine Law included these because it is written: Because their corruption is in them and blemishes be in them; they shall not be accepted for you.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 25.');"><sup>36</sup></span> And R'Ishmael taught: Wherever corruption is mentioned, the act of 'lewdness'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like the case of an animal which covered a woman etc.');"><sup>37</sup></span> and idolatry is meant. An act of 'lewdness' because it is written in the Scriptures: For all flesh hath corrupted his way on the earth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. VI, 12. The 'corruption' referred to here means immorality, as mentioned in verse 2 in the same chapter.');"><sup>38</sup></span> and idolatry because it is written: Lest ye corrupt yourselves and make you a graven image the similitude of any figure the likeness of a male or female.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. IV, 16.');"><sup>39</sup></span> And where ever a blemish disqualifies, the act of 'lewdness' and idolatry also disqualify,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Scripture compared them with a blemish: ' Because their corruption is in them and blemishes be in them'.');"><sup>40</sup></span> and wherever a blemish does not disqualify, the act of 'lewdness' and idolatry do not disqualify. And in the case of tithing an animal, since a blemish does not disqualify, because Scripture writes: He shall not search whether it be good or bad neither shall he change it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 33.');"><sup>41</sup></span> the act of 'lewdness' and idolatry also do not disqualify an animal for tithing. The case of an animal which covers [a woman] or that was covered [by a man] come under the head of 'lewdness'. [An animal] designated for idolatrous purposes and one so used are cases of idolatry. And [one given as] 'hire' comes under the category of an act of 'lewdness'; and the - 'price [of a dog]' is compared with the case of the 'hire'. As regards a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, he holds that there exists a doubt [in each case].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether it is a male or female and consequently both are tithed.');"><sup>42</sup></span> R'Simeon B'Judah says etc.' He holds that a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are of doubtful sex. Now in the case of consecrated objects, the Divine Law restricted the offering to an undisputed male and an undisputed female, prohibiting a tumtum or a hermaphrodite; and with regard also to the tithing of animals we form an analogy between 'under' and 'under' mentioned in connection with consecrated objects. Our Rabbis have taught: All lambs enter the shed to be tithed except kil'ayim and trefah. These are the words of R'Eleazar B'Judah a man of Kefar Bartotha, who reported this in the name of R'Joshua. Said R'Akiba: I have heard from him that this applies also to offspring which came forth through the caesarean section, an animal too young for sacrifice and an 'orphan'. And the first Tanna [R'Joshua] quoted above?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who does not mention the cases referred to by R. Akiba.');"><sup>43</sup></span> If he draws the analogy between 'under' and 'under' mentioned in connection with consecrated objects, these too [which are added by R'Akiba] should not be tithed. And if he does not make the analogy, we can indeed understand why trefah is not tithed, because Scripture says: 'All that shall pass under the rod', thus excluding the case of trefah which does not 'pass'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it became a trefah, for example, through having its leg broken from the knee upward, in which case it is not in a position physically to 'pass under the rod' in order to be tithed.');"><sup>44</sup></span> but with regard to kil'ayim, whence does he prove this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it does not enter to be tithed.');"><sup>45</sup></span> - One may still say that [the first Tanna] draws the analogy [mentioned] and in respect of offspring brought forth by means of the caesarean section