Talmud Illuminated Daily

Subscribe I have studied the complete Talmud five times. I summarize each page and illustrate it with art.

[Talmud Illuminated Daily @TalmudTweets]

Bechorot 55 - Jordan and Other Rivers
📷Rabbi Meir said that the animals on two sides of the Jordan river are not counted together for giving tithes. Rav Ashi noted that if there is a bridge there, they do combine. But, by the same token, animals on two sides of the Israeli border should combine, because they can cross - and we know that they don't! Rather, as Rav Chiya explained, Jordan is called a border by the Torah. But then animals on different sides of the tribes' borders should not combined, and they do!? Rav Chiya has to say that the "land" combines all tribes, but "Jordan" is not land.

Jordan is called that way because it is "yored mi-dan" - comes from Dan. Its source is the cave of Pameas. Why does it matter? - One who vows not to drink water of Pameas should not drink any Jordan water. Jordan's source - as is the source of all water in the world - is the river Euphrates. Why does that matter? For one who vows against the water of Euphrates. But we judge by common meaning, and that includes only Euphrates' water?! - Rather, if he vows against all water that comes from Euphrates.

But how can all water come from Euphrates seeing that there are springs in the high mountains? - They are fed by underground channels. And why is it called Euphrates? Because its waters multiply ("parim" in Hebrew). This teaching supports Shmuel, who said that a river is primarily fed from its bedrock, and disagrees with the father of Shmuel, who would build a separate mikvah for his daughter in Euphrates, because he felt that its water comes at times mostly from rain.

Art: John Robert Keitley Duff - Highland Bridge with Shepherd and FlockA page of Talmud in your inbox every morning — subscribe: https://t.co/pgGeR7w7IF

Don't understand a point? Ask https://t.co/aNZ5WqEvhm about it.

[Talmud Illuminated Daily @TalmudTweets]

Bechorot 54 - Animal Title by Species and by Year
Although animal tithe applies both for cattle and to flocks, it cannot be taken from one on the other; rather, the calves are counted by themselves. However, the sheep and goats are combined, because they are collectively designated by the Torah as "flocks". Furthermore, even though the tithe applies to animals of the last year (if the farmer did not give it yet) as well as of this year, the two years are not combined. Logically, one could reason otherwise and say, "If the animals born in different years, who are not forbidden to be bred between themselves, do not combine for tithe, then sheep and goats, who are forbidden to be bred between themselves, certainly should not combine!" To preclude this, the Torah combined them them as "flocks".

Animals that are spread out are still considered as one flock and are combined for tithe if they are within the same grazing range, that is, about 4,000 feet from each other. If two groups of animals are farther away than that, but there is a group of animals in between them, it serves to combine them. Rabbi Meir says, "Jordan River separates the animals."

Art: Julien Dupre - A Shepherd And His FlockA page of Talmud in your inbox every morning — subscribe: https://t.co/pgGeR7w7IF

Don't understand a point? Ask https://t.co/aNZ5WqEvhm about it.

[Talmud Illuminated Daily @TalmudTweets]

Bechorot 53 - Animal Tithe Today
When one has ten or more sheep, goats, or cows born in his flock in a particular year, he has to give animal tithe. He gathers the animals in a pen and lets them out one by one, through a narrow opening. He counts, and marks every tenth one with red dye, saying, "This one is animal tithe." The tithe animals are brought as sacrifices in the Temple, and are eaten by the owner and his guests in Jerusalem. When there is no Temple, the owner waits till the animals get a blemish, and then he can slaughter them. This is also true for animals born outside of Israel, except that their tithe is not brought to Jerusalem.

Today, however, animal tithes would be problematic, because of multiple prohibitions associated with them. As Rav Huna had described, the farmers used to place the animals' mothers outside the pen, with the result that orphaned and bought animals - from whom tithe need not be separated - would remain inside. The Sages thus instituted not to separate tithes at all, based on the multiple similar situations where the animal tithe would not apply, and about which general population might have been ignorant.

Art: Albertus Verhoesen - A Summer Landscape With Cows And Sheep By A Pool And A Milkmaid WatchingA page of Talmud in your inbox every morning — subscribe: https://t.co/pgGeR7w7IF

Don't understand a point? Ask https://t.co/aNZ5WqEvhm about it.

[Talmud Illuminated Daily @TalmudTweets]

Bechorot 52 - Firstborn Gets Double
Firstborn son gets a double portion in the inheritance from his father's estate, but not from his mother's. The Torah said, "to him applies the law of the firstborn." Even though it is talking here about him, the son, it also hints that this law applies only to "him", the father, and not to "her", the mother.

If some time passed between the death of the father and the division of the estate, and the property has meanwhile improved (fruit grew on trees), the firstborn does not get a double share in those improvements, but only a regular one, like the rest of the sons. Of course, when he gets the double share of the land, it may happen that together with it he will double share of the improvements, but he will have compensate his brother for them. The Torah said that he gets double from "all that is found in his father possession" to tell us that he does not get from what comes to the estate later, after death. He also does not get a double portion from the money owed to his father but uncollected at the time of death.

Art: Bartolome Esteban Murillo - The Prodigal Son Receiving His Portion Of InheritanceA page of Talmud in your inbox every morning — subscribe: https://t.co/pgGeR7w7IF

Don't understand a point? Ask https://t.co/aNZ5WqEvhm about it.

[Talmud Illuminated Daily @TalmudTweets]

Bechorot 51 - Firstborn Redemption with Real Estate

To redeem a firstborn one can give to a Kohen either five shekel coins or goods worth that amount. However, lands, slaves, and loan documents cannot be used for redemption. Why not? When the Torah said, "A firstborn is redeemed from one month old", it included all means of payment. When it continued, "According to the valuation of five shekels of silver", it limited the available means somewhat, and when it again generalized, "You shall redeem", we interpret it to mean that only payments similar to the specified ones are included. Just as coins are movable and have intrinsic value, so too all similar items are included. What's excluded? Lands, because they are not movable. Slaves, because they have the laws of the land. Loan documents, because they are pieces of paper not worth anything by themselves, but only because of the obligation recorded in them.

If the father wrote the Kohen a note which said "I owe you five shekels", he has created the obligation and needs to pay at. However, this does not redeem his son, so he needs to pay another five shekels. If the Kohen wants, he can return five shekels as a present.

Art: Jan Steen- A woman counting coins at a tableA page of Talmud in your inbox every morning — subscribe: https://t.co/pgGeR7wFyd

Don't understand a point? Ask https://t.co/aNZ5WqF36U about it.

[Talmud Illuminated Daily @TalmudTweets]

Bechorot 50 - Shekel, Selah, and Other Currencies
The amount given to a Kohen to redeem the firstborn son is "five shekels by the sanctuary standard, where the shekel is 20 gerah." In the times of the Second Temple the names of the coins changed. Since a common payment was a half-shekel, donated yearly by each Jew to the Temple for atonement sacrifices, this half-shekel was called a "shekel," and the full shekel was instead called a "selah". That is why our ruling was formulated in terms of "shekel by the sanctuary standard," and not just a "shekel."

The same "shekel of the sanctuary standard" was used for other payments prescribed by the Torah: the fifty-shekel payment of the rapist and of the seducer of a virgin young girl, and a one hundred-shekel payment of the defamer of his new bride.

These payments can be made with money or with goods, except for the half-shekel collected yearly for sacrifices. They are paid in Tyrian mintage, which was pure silver and eight times more valuable than the "provincial" coins used, for example, for a two hundred-zuz payment of a Ketubah given in the case of divorce. A sanctuary shekel is .8 oz. silver.

Art: Auguste CharpentierA page of Talmud in your inbox every morning — subscribe: https://t.co/pgGeR7w7IF

Don't understand a point? Ask https://t.co/aNZ5WqEvhm about it.

[Talmud Illuminated Daily @TalmudTweets]

Bechorot 49 - Cases of Firstborn Mix-ups and Deaths
If the firstborn son died within thirty days, even if the father had already given the redemption money to a Kohen, the Kohen must return it, because it was given early on the expectation that they child was viable and would survive. If the son died after thirty days, the father must still give the money. If the son died on the thirtieth day, this is a proof that it was not viable, and the Kohen returns the money. Rabbi Akiva is not certain if it is a proof, so if the Kohen got the money, he need not return it, but the father need not give it now.

If a man had two firstborn sons from two wives, and he redeemed the two boys with ten coins, and then one of the boys died, then if he gave all ten coins to one Kohen, the Kohen returns five coins. However, if he gave it to two different Kohanim, then he cannot get his money back, because each Kohen can say that perhaps he got the money for the son that is alive, and it is the other Kohen who got the money for the one who died.

Art: George Frederic Watts - Death Crowning InnocenceA page of Talmud in your inbox every morning — subscribe: https://t.co/pgGeR7w7IF

Don't understand a point? Ask https://t.co/aNZ5WqEvhm about it.

[Talmud Illuminated Daily @TalmudTweets]

Bechorot 48 - Firstborn Both for Inheritance and the Kohen
One who is a firstborn both for his father and his mother is an obvious case that need not be mentioned. Rather, the first case of this ruling is when a woman has a miscarriage, but an embryo is so undeveloped that it looks full of water or multicolored matter, like a fish or a crawling animal, or if she aborts it on the fortieth day after conception - all these are not considered births, and the next child is a firstborn both for inheritance and for the Kohen.

A firstborns son born by Cesarean section and the naturally born that follows him - neither is a firstborn for either inheritance - because the Torah said "And they bore him sons," and Caesarean is not a classical birth, or the Kohen - because the child needs be both the first and to open the womb. Rabbi Shimon considers the first one firstborn for inheritance, because in his opinion the Caesarean section is legally included in giving birth. He also regards the second one a firstborn for giving the Kohen five silver coins, because he considers either of the two conditions - first birth or first to open a womb - sufficient.

Art: Nicholas Gysis - New ArrivalA page of Talmud in your inbox every morning — subscribe: https://t.co/pgGeR7w7IF

Don't understand a point? Ask https://t.co/aNZ5WqEvhm about it.

[Talmud Illuminated Daily @TalmudTweets]

Bechorot 47 - How Does One Recognize a Face?
Once a child shows its forehead from its mother's womb, it is considered born; at this moment the lives of the baby and of its mother become equal. However - said Resh Lakish - for the purposes of firstborn inheritance, it is not considered born until his face appears. If he retracts his head and another child appears, the other child will be the firstborn. That is because the word "recognize" is used talking about the firstborn, and for that the complete face must be seen. Rabbi Yochanan says that even here the forehead is enough. Resh Lakish poses multiple questions to Rabbi Yochanan, which the latter answers by emending the rulings. Finally, he answers that perhaps recognizing a firstborn by the forehead is possible while in other situations a full face is needed.

If a woman did not wait for the prescribed three months before remarrying, and her firstborn child does not know the true father, he is the firstborn for the Kohen but not for inheritance. But then he should not get any inheritance, since he can't prove paternity! He should sue the other children jointly with the next son, claiming that between them one is a firstborn.

Art: Franz Cusaude - The Gosnall TwinsA page of Talmud in your inbox every morning — subscribe: https://t.co/pgGeR7w7IF

Don't understand a point? Ask https://t.co/aNZ5WqEvhm about it.

[Talmud Illuminated Daily @TalmudTweets]

Bechorot 46 - Firstborn For Inheritance But Not for Kohen
Some blemishes apply only to animals but do not prevent a Kohen from serving in the Temple: if a calf mother was sacrificed that day, one cannot bring her offspring, but a Kohen and his son can serve on the same day; an animal that is terefah (sick and therefore not kosher), one delivered by Caesarean section, and one with whom bestiality was committed - all cannot be brought as sacrifices, but these situation do not disqualify a Kohen. A Kohen married to a woman prohibited to him cannot serve until he vows to divorce, and likewise one who visits cemeteries.

A child can be a firstborn for inheritance but not a firstborn for a Kohen - that is, he does not need to be redeemed by giving five silver coins to a Kohen. How so? If a woman was pregnant with twins, and the head of one emerged first, but then retracted and he died, and the second child was born healthy. The firstborn for a Kohen is the one who "opened the womb of his mother," and that was the first child. The firstborn for inheritance is the first viable child, and that is the second one.

Art: Salomon de Bray - The Twins Clara and Aelbert de BrayA page of Talmud in your inbox every morning — subscribe: https://t.co/pgGeR7w7IF

Don't understand a point? Ask https://t.co/aNZ5WqEvhm about it.

[Talmud Illuminated Daily @TalmudTweets]

Bechorot 45 - Blemishes of Legs and Hands of a Kohen
Some of the foot blemishes include: if he puts his feet together while sitting down and cannot bring his knees together, if his feet are broad and flat like those of a goose, if his toes are joined together - however if they are joined only from the foot until the middle join, he is fit.

One who has extra digits in his hands and feet, that is, six on each - Rabbi Yehudah declares him fit, but the Sages say that he is unfit. They argue about a phrase in Samuel, "There was another war, and there was a man of huge stature, with six fingers on his hands and feet." The Sages consider these words a shame, but Rabbi Yehudah considers them a praise.

A left-handed Kohen cannot serve in the Temple because he lacks a legally recognized right hand, and many services require it. An ambidexterous Kohen - Rabbi Yehudah the Prince assumes that this is due to the weakness in the right hand, which makes it a blemish, but the Sages say that it is his left hand that grew unusually strong, thus, he is fit.

Art: Pietro Longhi - The Giant MagratA page of Talmud in your inbox every morning — subscribe: https://t.co/pgGeR7w7IF

Don't understand a point? Ask https://t.co/aNZ5WqEvhm about it.

[Talmud Illuminated Daily @TalmudTweets]

Bechorot 44 - Three Groups of Blemishes in a Kohen
We saw that a Kohen may be disqualified because of a full-fledged blemish described in the Torah, or because of some lighter irregularity that makes him look different from a typical descendant of Aharon. What is the practical difference between the two? Both types cannot serve in the Temple and are liable to lashes if they do, but only the first one makes the actual service invalid.

There is also a third group of disqualifications, called "unsightly appearance," such as one with a sunken nose or whose lashes have fallen out. If such a Kohen serves in the Temple, he merely transgresses a commandment derived by implication, for which there is no punishment.

Further blemishes, some more strict, some less, and some added by the Sages, include an eye as large a calf's eye, or as small as that of a goose, a body too large for the limbs, or the limbs too large for the body, ears too small, an upper lip protruding beyond the lower one, and teeth that have fallen out - the last one because of unsightly appearance. Also included are abnormally bulging breasts and belly.

There are 50 blemishes shared with animals and 90 unique to Kohanim.

Art: Cuyp Jacob Gerritsz - Boy with a GooseA page of Talmud in your inbox every morning — subscribe: https://t.co/pgGeR7w7IF

Don't understand a point? Ask https://t.co/aNZ5WqEvhm about it.

[Talmud Illuminated Daily @TalmudTweets]

Bechorot 43 - Blemished that Disqualify a Kohen
📷All blemishes that disqualify a firstborn animal from being a sacrifice also disqualify a Kohen from serving in the Temple. Moreover, there are blemishes for animals that are not listed for Kohanim, and vice versa, but in truth all blemishes listed for one apply to the other. This is learned from the use of an extra word "wart" that is found in both laws and that connects them. Without this connection, we could argue that an animal's law should be stricter, since it itself is brought on the Altar, or alternatively that the Kohen's law is stricter, since he can perform many Temple services.

Unique to Kohanim is a requirement to be a typical descendant of Aharon. Thus it becomes a blemish to have a deformed head, and a hunchback, although Rabbi Yehudah declares a hunchback fit for Temple service. A bald-headed man is unfit. What is defined as bald? Whoever has no ring of hair circling from ear to ear.

A disqualified Kohen may still eat of the Kohanim's portions, and he has a claim to an equal share, together with all the members of his family, when the family gets its turn to serve in the Temple.

Art: John Constable - Portrait of a Balding ManA page of Talmud in your inbox every morning — subscribe: https://t.co/pgGeR7w7IF

Don't understand a point? Ask https://t.co/aNZ5WqEvhm about it.

[Talmud Illuminated Daily @TalmudTweets]

Bechorot 42 - Undefined Gender, According to Rav Chisda
📷Rav Chisda said, "Even if an androgyne (a being with both male and female genitals) is to be considered a separate gender, but a being of undefined gender (genitals covered by skin) is definitely either a male or a female, except that we don't know which. A practical consequence of this viewpoint is that a firstborn animal of undefined gender is to be treated as a potential firstborn male, not to be worked, and not to be slaughtered until it develops a blemish. Talmud is now going to challenge this.

One can donate a personal valuation to the Temple (subject of the next Tractate), which is defined only for a definite male or a female, but not an androgyne and not an undefined gender. But God knows about every being of undefined gender what it really is, so why did the Torah have to exclude it?! Rav Chisda will answer, "The text of the rule is incorrect, it should not include undefined gender." Several more challenges will be deflected in a similar way, and it will turn out that the disagreement dates back to much earlier times, with both points of view being equally valid.

Art: David The Younger Teniers - Domestic Worker Holding a BroomA page of Talmud in your inbox every morning — subscribe: https://t.co/pgGeR7wFyd

Don't understand a point? Ask https://t.co/aNZ5WqF36U about it.

[Talmud Illuminated Daily @TalmudTweets]

Bechorot 41 - Blemishes Not Severe Enough
📷Certain blemishes of a firstborn male animal are enough to disqualify it from a sacrifice, but are not severe enough to allow to slaughter it outside the Temple. Their owner is left with no alternative but to wait, either until the animal develops a full-fledged blemish, or until the disqualifying condition leaves. These are: white flecks or water in the eye that are not permanent; back gums that were notched but not uprooted; an animal that has a wart or a boil, one that is old, sick, or foul-smelling; an animal which was a passive or active participant in bestiality; one that killed a person, but according to the testimony of only one witness - which prevents it from being a sacrifice but does not allow the court to execute it.

An animal whose genitals are covered with skin so that its gender it unclear, or one with both sets of genitals cannot be slaughtered anywhere, because that is another not-so-severe blemish. Rabbi Ismael considers the second set of genitals a blemish which permits to slaughter the animal. Another opinion considers such an animal a separate species to whom the laws of firstborn don't apply at all.

Art: Richard Ansdell - The Sick LambA page of Talmud in your inbox every morning — subscribe: https://t.co/pgGeR7w7IF

Don't understand a point? Ask https://t.co/aNZ5WqEvhm about it.

[Talmud Illuminated Daily @TalmudTweets]

Bechorot 40 - Blemishes of the Tail, Testicles, and Feet
Further blemishes: the sheath (skin pocket) of the male member that was notched; the genitals of a female animal sacrifice that were notched; the tail notched in the bone or the tip of the tail exposed to the bone. Rabbi Elazar said, "The sheath is a blemish only if notched, but if completely missing, it will eventually grow back."

A firstborn that has no testicles is blemished. If it has one testicle, Rabbi Ishmael says that if it has two pouches, it is a sign that it has a second testicle, and one need not check. Rabbi Akiva says that one needs to set it on its buttocks and squeeze, and the second testicle, if it's there, will come down, otherwise, it is a blemish. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri disagrees and says that even a testicle that is present but does not descend is not a blemish.

An animal that has five legs or three legs is blemished, but if a hind leg is missing, then it is in addition a terefah and cannot be eaten anyway, even with a blemish. A slipped thigh is a blemish but if  the sinews have disintegrated, it is in addition a terefah.

Art: Richard Ansdell - The Wounded HoundA page of Talmud in your inbox every morning — subscribe: https://t.co/pgGeR7w7IF

Don't understand a point? Ask https://t.co/aNZ5WqEvhm about it.

[Talmud Illuminated Daily @TalmudTweets]

Bechorot 39 - Eye Exam for Firstborn Animals
How does one check whether the condition of watery eye that obstructs the view is indeed a permanent blemish that won't heal? One needs to feed the animal first dry fodder (meaning, grown in dry months), then moist fodder (grown in moist months), coming from rain-watered fields, for three months, not in any other combination of factors. If the condition still persists, it is a sign that the blemish is permanent.

How much fodder has to be administered? - The volume of a dried fig. Should it be given at each meal or at the first meal? Before the meal or after? Before drinking or after? Should the animal be fettered or free to roam, in the city or in the field, and if in the field, is a garden next to the city good enough? All these questions remained unresolved.

Blemishes of the nose: if it was punctured, notched, or split, and the same for the lip. Qualifying blemishes of the mouth: front gums notched or cut, back gums completely uprooted. Rabbi Chanina ben Antignos says: "Gums from the molars and beyond are considered hidden blemishes and are therefore never examined, gums under molars including."

Art: Gerrit Van Honthorst - The Tooth PullerA page of Talmud in your inbox every morning — subscribe: https://t.co/pgGeR7w7IF

Don't understand a point? Ask https://t.co/aNZ5WqEvhm about it.

[Talmud Illuminated Daily @TalmudTweets]

Bechorot 38 - Eye Blemishes of Firstborn Animals

📷The first group of blemishes that can happen to a firstborn animal, leading it to loose its holiness and allow it to be slaughtered outside the Temple were blemishes of the ear. But how do we know the law of the blemishes altogether? The Torah said, "If an animal has a blemish" - include any blemish whatsoever. Then it continued "such as when it is crippled or blind" - to limit it only to blemishes that stop it from doing work. Then it generalized again, "any other blemish" to widen the definition, and include even permanent blemishes that don't stop it from doing work, such as the ones in the ear. And then the Torah limited it again, saying "serious" blemish, to exclude permanent blemishes that are not visible, such as in the gums inside the mouth. This method of Torah logic is called "amplification and limitation."

The blemishes in the eye include punctured, notched, or split eyelid, a cataract (which requires special expertise), unusual growths, the white of the eye entering the black (but not the black entering the white), white flecks - a condition leading to blindness, and watery eyes if this completely obstructs the vision.

Art: Francois Verwilt - A shepherd couple with goats and a cow nearbyA page of Talmud in your inbox every morning — subscribe: https://t.co/pgGeR7wFyd

Don't understand a point? Ask https://t.co/aNZ5WqF36U about it.

[Talmud Illuminated Daily @TalmudTweets]

Bechorot 37 - Blemished Firstborn Animals Nowadays
📷If a firstborn animal cannot be brought as a sacrifice, either because there is no Temple standing, or because it was born outside of Israel, a panel of three laymen can examine an obvious defect and authorize the slaughter based upon it. Obvious defects include a blind eye, a cut-off limb and other similar ones, and the examiners must be somewhat familiar with the laws of firstborn.

If one sells the meat of a firstborn without showing its blemish to an expert and the buyer eats some of it, the seller is penalized to refund the full price, and the rest of the meat is buried. Similarly, if one sells beef and it is found to be non-kosher, but the buyer already ate some, the seller refunds the fulls price. In general, this rule applies to anything that is considered disgusting, such as non-kosher meat or forbidden seafood, because the buyer would rather not have eaten it. However, if the food is prohibited only by a Rabbinical decree, the buyer cannot claim refund for what he already ate.

Blemishes qualifying for slaughter include ear notched in the cartilage but not in the skin, ear split, punctured, and dried up.

Art: Edward Ladell - Shrimps, a peeled lemon, a glass of wine and a blue and white ginger jar, on a draped table

Don't understand a point? Ask https://t.co/aNZ5WqEvhm about it.

[Talmud Illuminated Daily @TalmudTweets]

Bechorot 36 - Who Can Be Believed About a Blemish
📷When there is no Temple and a firstborn cannot be brought as a sacrifice, a Kohen stands to gain most when a firstborn has a blemish. Therefore, although a regular Jewish shepherd is believed to testify that a certain blemish occurred naturally and he did not cause it, a Kohen shepherd is not believed. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that he is believed concerning some else's firstborn, but not about his own, and Rabbi Meir says that one suspected concerning something can neither judge nor testify about it. Each teacher explains his reasons to trust or not to trust in a given situation, and the hopes of gain or inner justifications that a liar may have. In addition, "Kohen shepherd" may refer to a shepherd who happens to be a Kohen, or alternatively to anyone who works for a Kohen as a shepherd. Thus the Talmud goes through the two sets of possible reasons.

A Kohen is believed to say, "I showed this firstborn to an expert, and he concluded that it is permanently blemished, so I can slaughter it" - because in matters that may be discovered people usually don't lie.

Art: James Riddel - A Goat With Her Kid

Don't understand a point? Ask https://t.co/aNZ5WqEvhm about it.