דעיקר לאו לכפרה אתי משהי לה או דלמא כיון דעולה נמי מכפרא אעשה לא משהי לה being brought for atonement is not its primary function, there is a concern that one might keep it? Or perhaps, since a burnt offering also effects atonement for neglecting to perform a positive mitzva, one does not keep the animal longer than necessary.
ת"ש התולש צמר מבכור תם אע"פ שנולד בו מום שחטו אסור טעמא דתולש הא נתלש שרי וכל שכן עולה דלא משהי לה The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: With regard to one who plucks the wool from an unblemished firstborn, even though it later developed a blemish and the owner then slaughtered it, use of the wool is prohibited. The Gemara infers: The reason use of the wool is prohibited is because he plucks it. But if it was torn out not by human intervention it is permitted. And this is correct all the more so with regard to a burnt offering, where one does not keep the animal any longer than necessary.
הוא הדין אפילו נתלש נמי אסור והאי דקתני תולש להודיעך כחו דעקביא דבבעל מום אפילו בתולש נמי שרי The Gemara rejects this proof: Actually, the same is true even if the wool of an unblemished firstborn animal was torn out by some other means; it is also prohibited. And the reason that the baraita teaches the halakha using the term: One who plucks, is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Akavya ben Mahalalel, as he maintains that in the case of a blemished animal, discussed in the latter clause of the baraita, even if one plucks the wool it is permitted. Since the latter clause discusses a case where one plucked the wool himself, it is inferred that the former clause discusses the same situation.
והאנן נשר תנן תנא נשר להודיעך כחן דרבנן תנא תולש להודיעך כחו דעקביא: The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that the hair was shed rather than plucked? The Gemara explains that the mishna taught a case where the hair of the blemished animal was shed in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, who deem the wool prohibited even in such a case. Conversely, the baraita taught a case where one plucks the hair in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Akavya.
צמר המדולדל כו': היכי דמי אינו נראה עם הגיזה אמר רבי אלעזר אמר ריש לקיש כל שעיקרו הפוך כלפי ראשו רב נתן בר אושעיא אמר כל שאינו מתמעך עם הגיזה § The mishna teaches that it is permitted to derive benefit from wool that is dangling from a firstborn but was not completely shed if it appears to be part of the fleece when the animal is shorn after death, but otherwise it is prohibited. The Gemara inquires: What is considered: That which does not appear to be part of the fleece? Rabbi Elazar says that Reish Lakish says: This includes any strand of wool whose root is overturned and is facing toward the top, i.e., outward. Rav Natan bar Oshaya says: This includes any strand of wool that is not compressed together with the rest of the fleece, i.e., it sticks out when the fleece is pressed down.
וריש לקיש מאי טעמא לא אמר כרב נתן בר אושעיא אמר רבי אילעא קסבר ריש לקיש לפי שאי אפשר לגיזה בלא נימין המדולדלות: And what is the reason Reish Lakish did not state his explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rav Natan bar Oshaya, whose explanation is the more straightforward meaning of the phrase: That which does not appear to be part of the fleece? Rabbi Ile’a says: Reish Lakish holds that the Sages did not deem strands of wool that are not compressed together with the rest of the fleece prohibited, because it is impossible for there to be fleece without dangling hairs. If Rav Natan bar Oshaya’s explanation were accepted, it would never be permitted to use such fleece of a dead firstborn animal. Consequently, Reish Lakish explains the statement of the mishna in a more lenient manner.
הדרן עלך הלוקח בהמה
מתני׳ עד כמה ישראל חייבין ליטפל בבכור בדקה שלשים יום ובגסה חמשים יום ר' יוסי אומר בדקה שלשה חדשים אמר לו הכהן בתוך הזמן תנהו לי הרי זה לא יתננו לו ואם בעל מום הוא ואמר לו תנהו לי שאוכלנו מותר ובשעת המקדש אם היה תמים אמר לו תן ואקרבנו מותר MISHNA: Until when must an Israelite tend to and raise a firstborn animal before giving it to the priest? With regard to a small animal, e.g., a sheep or goat, it is thirty days, and with regard to a large animal, e.g., cattle, it is fifty days. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a small animal, it is three months. If the priest said to the owner within that period: Give it to me, that owner may not give it to him. And if it is a blemished firstborn and the priest said to him: Give it to me so I may eat it, it is permitted for the owner to give it to him. And at the time that the Temple is standing, if it is unblemished and the priest said to him: Give it to me and I will sacrifice it, it is permitted for the owner to give it to him.
הבכור נאכל שנה בשנה בין תם בין בעל מום שנאמר (דברים טו, כ) לפני ה' אלהיך תאכלנו שנה בשנה נולד לו מום בתוך שנתו רשאי לקיימו כל שנים עשר חדש לאחר י"ב חדש אינו רשאי לקיימו אלא ל' יום: The firstborn animal is eaten year by year, i.e., within its first year, whether it is blemished or whether it is unblemished, as it is stated: “You shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year” (Deuteronomy 15:20). If a blemish developed within its first year, it is permitted for the owner to maintain the animal for the entire twelve months. If a blemish developed after twelve months have passed, it is permitted for the owner to maintain the animal for only thirty days.
גמ׳ מנה"מ אמר רב כהנא דאמר קרא (שמות כב, כח) בכור בניך תתן לי כן תעשה לצאנך GEMARA: The mishna teaches that an Israelite must raise a firstborn animal for thirty or fifty days, depending on the type of animal, before giving it to a priest. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Kahana said: They are derived from a verse, as the verse states: “You shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest, and of the outflow of your presses; you shall give to Me your firstborn sons. So you shall do with your oxen, and with your sheep; seven days it shall be with its mother, on the eighth day you shall give it to Me” (Exodus 22:28–29). The second part of verse 28 is juxtaposed to the second animal mentioned in verse 29. This juxtaposition teaches that just as a firstborn son is redeemed when he is thirty days old (Numbers 18:16), so too a sheep is given to the priest only when it is thirty days old.
מלאתך ודמעך לא תאחר כן תעשה לשורך The verses also state: “You shall not delay the fullness of your harvest, and of the outflow of your presses…So you shall do with your oxen” (Exodus 22:28–29). Just as the first fruits are brought on the festival of Shavuot, fifty days after Passover, so too the firstborn oxen are given to a priest when they are fifty days old. Here, the first part of verse 28 is juxtaposed with the first animal mentioned in verse 29.
איפוך אנא מסתברא דמקדם למקדם דמאחר לדמאחר אדרבה דסמיך ליה לדסמיך ליה The Gemara challenges: If these verses are the source, one can reverse the cases and derive that a firstborn ox must be given to the priest after thirty days, and a firstborn sheep after fifty days. The Gemara explains: It stands to reason that the time period that is alluded to earlier in the first verse corresponds to the animal that is mentioned earlier in the second verse, while the time period that is alluded to later in the first verse corresponds to the animal that is mentioned later in the second verse. The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, it stands to reason that the time period that is alluded to closer to the mention of an animal should correspond to the animal, i.e., oxen, that is closest to it.
אלא אמר רבא אמר קרא תעשה הוסיף לך הכתוב עשייה אחרת בשורך Rather, Rava says that the halakha of both a firstborn sheep and a firstborn ox are juxtaposed with the halakha of a firstborn child, which teaches that both require at least thirty days. But since the verse states: “So you shall do with your oxen” (Exodus 22:29), the verse adds an extra act of doing for you in the case of your oxen. In other words, the verse requires that the owner take care of an ox for additional time before giving it to the priest.
ואימא שיתין לא מסרך הכתוב אלא לחכמים: The Gemara challenges: But if so, one can say that the owner must care for the ox an additional thirty days, making a total of sixty days. From where is the total of fifty days derived? The Gemara answers: The interpretation of the verse with regard to the exact amount of time was given only to the Sages, and they determined that the owner must take care of his ox for fifty days.
תניא נמי הכי בכור בניך תתן לי כן תעשה לצאנך יכול אף לשורך תלמוד לומר תעשה הוסיף לך הכתוב עשייה אחרת בשורך לא מסרך הכתוב אלא לחכמים This is also taught in a baraita: “You shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest, and of the outflow of your presses; you shall give to Me your firstborn sons. So you shall do with your oxen, and with your sheep; seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me” (Exodus 22:28–29). One might have thought that this time period, i.e., thirty days, applies also to your oxen. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall do.” The verse adds an extra act of doing for you in the case of your oxen, and the interpretation of the verse was given only to the Sages.
מכאן אמרו עד כמה ישראל חייבין להטפל בבכור בבהמה דקה שלשים יום בגסה חמשים יום רבי יוסי אומר בדקה שלשה חדשים מפני שטפולה מרובה תנא מפני ששיניה דקות: From here the Sages stated: Until when must an Israelite tend to and raise a firstborn animal before handing it to the priest? With regard to a small animal, e.g., a sheep or goat, it is thirty days, and with regard to a large animal, e.g., cattle, it is fifty days. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a small animal, it is three months, because its tending is extensive, i.e., a great deal of work and effort are required in order to raise it before it can be given to a priest. A tanna taught that so much effort is required to raise a sheep because its teeth are small and it cannot eat most foods.
אם אמר לו הכהן בתוך הזמן תנהו לי הרי זה לא יתן לו: מאי טעמא אמר רב ששת מפני שנראה ככהן המסייע בבית הגרנות § The mishna teaches: If the priest said to the owner within that period: Give it to me, that owner may not give it to him. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Rav Sheshet says: Because such a priest appears like a priest who assists at the threshing floor so that he can be given teruma. Since this arrangement benefits the owner of the firstborn, as he is spared the effort of taking care of the animal throughout this period, it is as though this priest has paid for the right to receive the firstborn, which is prohibited.
תנו רבנן הכהנים והלוים והעניים המסייעים בבית הרועים ובבית הגרנות ובבית המטבחים אין נותנין להם תרומה ומעשר בשכרן ואם עושין כן חיללו ועליהן הכתוב אומר (מלאכי ב, ח) שחתם ברית הלוי ואומר (במדבר יח, לב) ואת קדשי בני ישראל לא תחללו ולא תמותו The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the priests, the Levites, and the poor people who assist in the home of the shepherd, or at the threshing floor, or in the slaughterhouse, one may not give them teruma or tithe as their wages. And if one did so, he desecrated the sanctity of the item. And with regard to them the verse states: “But you are turned aside out of the way; you have caused many to stumble in the law; you have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 2:8). And another verse states: “And you shall bear no sin by it, seeing that you have set apart the best from it; and you shall not desecrate the sacred items of the children of Israel, that you shall not die” (Numbers 18:32).
מאי ואומר וכי תימא מיתה לא ת"ש ואת קדשי בני ישראל לא תחללו ולא תמותו The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Gemara cites the second verse introduced with the phrase: And another verse states? The Gemara answers: And if you would say that the first verse indicates merely that teruma and tithe become desecrated, but one who does this is not punished by death, come and hear the second verse cited by the Gemara: “And you shall not desecrate the sacred items of the children of Israel, that you shall not die” (Numbers 18:32).
ובקשו חכמים לקונסן ולהיות מפרישין עליהן תרומה משלם ומפני מה לא קנסום דלמא אתי לאפרושי מן הפטור על החיוב The baraita continues: And the Sages wished to penalize those who gave teruma or tithe to the priests, Levites, or poor people who helped them, and to require them to separate in their place complete teruma, so that the owners of the produce would not benefit from their improper actions. And for what reason did the Sages not penalize them? Perhaps they would mistakenly think that the produce has not yet been tithed at all, and they would come to separate teruma and tithes from it when it is actually exempt produce, as by Torah law it has already had its tithes removed. They might then separate teruma and tithes from it on behalf of produce to which the obligation of separating tithes still applies, i.e., regular untithed produce.
ובכולן יש בהן The baraita adds: And in all of these cases, although it is prohibited to give the teruma and tithe to a priest or Levite as his wages, nevertheless there is