Bekhorot בכורות

Tractate Bekhorot deals primarily with the halakhot of the various categories of firstborn animals and people. It appears that the tractate was placed immediately following tractate Hullin due to the similarities between the halakhot discussed there, i.e., those relating to ritual slaughter, consumption of animals in general, and gifts to which members of the priesthood are entitled, and the halakhot discussed here, i.e., those relating to the male firstborn of a kosher animal. This tractate also discusses the halakhot of animal tithe, due to the similarities between these halakhot and the halakhot of a male firstborn kosher animal.

The Torah commands that three distinct categories of firstborn be consecrated to God: A woman's firstborn son, the male firstborn of a kosher domesticated animal, and a male firstborn donkey. The reason for this is given explicitly in the Torah; during the plague of the firstborn, when God smote all of the firstborn in Egypt, both human and animal, the Jewish firstborn were saved. Therefore, God sanctified human and animal firstborn as His own, and consequently, every Jew is commanded to consecrate them, each type of firstborn in its own manner. These mitzvot are included both in the category of mitzvot that serve to remind the Jews of the exodus from Egypt, as well as those that obligate one to give the first of all he has to God, like the mitzvot of teruma and first fruits. It is due to their being grouped in the latter category that all of the firstborn are given in some form to the priest, who is the messenger of God, and are included in the category of gifts of the priesthood.

A number of similarities exist between the three types of firstborns: All three mitzvot apply specifically to a male firstborn that is the first to emerge from its mother's womb, the sanctity of all of them takes effect automatically from the moment of birth, and all three types of firstborns or the animals redeemed in their stead must be given to a priest. Yet the nature of the sanctity of each is not identical, and is reflected in different ways in the halakha.

A firstborn donkey is obviously not sanctified in the classical sense, as it is a non-kosher animal and may not be sacrificed as an offering. In addition, it is not given to the priest; a lamb is given to the priest in its stead, an action referred to as the redemption of the firstborn donkey. Whereas prior to its redemption, some Sages hold that deriving benefit from the donkey is prohibited, and this is the accepted halakha, from that point onward deriving benefit from it is permitted, and it is considered the property of its owner with regard to all matters. If the firstborn donkey is not redeemed with a lamb, its neck must be broken. These basic halakhot are stated explicitly in the Torah, though certain aspects require additional analysis, such as addressing the questions of whether or not one may redeem a firstborn donkey with money instead of a lamb, whether it is preferable to redeem the donkey or whether breaking its neck is acceptable ab initio, and what its status is after its neck is broken.

The male firstborn of a kosher animal, such as an ox, lamb, or goat, is imbued at birth with the sanctity of an offering. As opposed to other offerings, which are consecrated by a person, this offering's sanctity is inherent. After the initial stages of its growth, it is given to a priest, who must sacrifice it in the Temple within its first year and eat its meat in Jerusalem. If the firstborn animal develops a blemish and is not suitable for sacrifice as an offering, the priest may slaughter it and eat it anywhere. Nevertheless, the inherent sanctity of the firstborn does not lapse, and it is still prohibited to shear it or perform labor with it, as it is prohibited with regard to any other sacrificial animals. In addition, it cannot be redeemed, in contrast to other sacrificial animals that develop a blemish, and one may not sell its meat in the marketplace like non-sacred meat.

A woman's firstborn son whose parents are both Israelites, as opposed to priests or Levites, is also sanctified at birth. In contrast to the other categories of firstborns, this sanctity produces no sacrificial status or prohibition against deriving benefit from the firstborn. Rather, the effect of this sanctity is that the father must redeem him by giving five silver shekels to a priest. This mitzva of redeeming a firstborn son applies once the baby is thirty days old. Although the mitzva is incumbent upon the father, if the firstborn son is not redeemed by his father, he must redeem himself. There is another type of firstborn, the firstborn son of the father, known as reshit ono. If this child is not his mother's firstborn son as well, he does not possess the sanctity of a firstborn, but he does receive a double portion of his father's inheritance. By contrast, an individual who is a woman's firstborn son but not the firstborn of the father is subject to the mitzva of redemption but does not receive a double inheritance. This tractate deals with both types of firstborns.

As previously mentioned, all three of the primary types of firstborns are males that are defined as the first of the womb of their mother. Although this definition appears to be clear, a number of ambiguities exist: Is an offspring born via caesarean section also considered a firstborn, and if not, what is the status of the subsequent offspring? What is the status of an offspring born following a non-viable offspring? Is any offspring that died deemed a non-viable offspring, or only one that had some sort of defect?

Another issue relevant to animal firstborns is that of ownership. The Torah refers to a firstborn as being: “In Israel” (Numbers 3:13). The Sages derive from here that a firstborn animal must belong to a Jew in order to be subject to firstborn status. Here too, questions arise, such as: What is the halakha if the mother animal is owned by a Jew but the offspring is sold to a gentile prior to its birth, or vice versa, i.e., the mother belongs to a gentile and the offspring is sold to a Jew prior to its birth? In addition, is a mother or offspring that is only partially owned by a Jew subject to firstborn status? With regard to a woman's firstborn son, the verse cited above also raises a dilemma with regard to the children of a convert: Is the firstborn subject to firstborn status if he was born prior to the conversion of his mother? By contrast, is the second son, who is the first Jewish son, subject to firstborn status? Another dilemma relates to the species that are subject to firstborn status. With regard to the firstborn of kosher animals, only an offspring which is the same species as the mother is subject to firstborn status. The Gemara asks: Is a hybrid of a sheep and a goat, or of a domesticated animal and an undomesticated animal, considered to be the same species as the mother or not? In addition, what is the status of an animal that is born with an unusual appearance, such as the offspring of a ewe that looks like a goat, or the offspring of a cow, which is a kosher animal, that looks like a donkey, which is a non-kosher animal? Even with regard to humans, there are some non-viable offspring whose lack of development or extremely unusual appearance gives rise to the possibility that perhaps the child is not considered a human offspring at all, in which case firstborn status would apply to the subsequent offspring. The discussion of these issues also prompts the Sages to discuss whether an animal that looks like a non-kosher animal but was born to a kosher animal is considered kosher, which leads to a discussion of several related issues, such as the status of foods that come from a living animal that is either kosher or non-kosher.

There are also discussions in this tractate with regard to situations of uncertainty where it is not possible to identify the mother of the firstborn or the firstborn itself. In these cases, a financial component exists: May the priest claim that a certain animal belongs to him as a firstborn when it is uncertain whether it actually is a firstborn? In this context, the principle that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant applies, and consequently the priest may not claim the animal as his own unless he can prove that it is a firstborn. Nevertheless, with regard to the ritual ramifications of firstborn status the owner must be stringent in cases of uncertainty. Therefore, he still designates a lamb for his donkey whose status is uncertain, and he treats his kosher animal that has uncertain firstborn status with sanctity, though he is not required to give any of them to the priest.

A large portion of tractate Bekhorot discusses the halakhot of a firstborn kosher animal that has a blemish, as the Torah permits the slaughter of such an animal outside of the Temple. Determining when a firstborn kosher animal has a blemish is highly significant halakhically, as slaughtering sacrificial animals outside of the Temple is subject to the punishment of excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. In addition, identifying a blemish requires specific expertise with regard to animals and their blemishes. Therefore, not every individual can deem a firstborn kosher animal permitted for slaughter outside the Temple; only an expert who has received ordination in this area can do so. If the animal was deemed permitted for slaughter outside the Temple without a ruling by an expert, the Sages prohibited deriving benefit from the carcass.

Determining that a firstborn is blemished also has financial significance for the priest, as he must bring an unblemished firstborn animal to Jerusalem to be sacrificed and consumed there, while it is permitted to slaughter and eat a blemished animal in any location. Following the destruction of the Temple, the priest was required to raise the firstborn animal that he received, and it was no longer permitted for him to use it for any labor until it developed a blemish, and even then, he was not permitted to sell the animal in the marketplace like an ordinary animal. These restrictions created various difficulties with regard to the credibility of the priests: They were often suspected of intentionally causing blemishes to the firstborns, which is prohibited by Torah law, and they were also suspected of selling the meat of firstborns as normal meat. In order to penalize the transgressors and discourage them from continuing to intentionally cause the animals to become blemished, the Sages stated that in the case of a firstborn animal to which a priest intentionally caused a blemish, or where the blemish was caused with his knowledge, it is prohibited for him to derive benefit from that animal. In addition, the Sages ruled that a priest is not deemed credible when claiming that the firstborn in his possession developed a blemish naturally. Likewise, an expert may not receive payment for checking firstborn animals for blemishes unless he receives a set standard fee irrespective of his ruling.

The tractate then discusses the limits of the prohibition against receiving payment for judging and testifying in general, as well as the prohibition against purchasing potentially forbidden items from suspect individuals: In which cases is one who is suspected with regard to one area of halakha also suspected with regard to a different area? How can a suspect individual regain credibility, and how does one lose credibility? This portion of the tractate includes a similar discussion, based on mishnayot in tractate Demai, with regard to the distinction between an am ha'aretz, i.e., one who is suspected with regard to matters of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes, and a haver, i.e., one who is devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially the halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes, who is generally deemed credible.

This tractate also discusses at length the halakhot of the blemishes that disqualify a firstborn animal from being sacrificed as an offering and render it permitted for slaughter outside of the Temple. Although specific blemishes that disqualify an animal from being sacrificed as an offering are mentioned in the Torah, these blemishes must be identified on the body of the animal, which is sometimes difficult to do. Moreover, the Gemara clarifies what is included in each type of blemish. In addition to the blemishes mentioned explicitly, other blemishes are included due to the principle that any permanent blemish that is easily recognizable to everyone and prevents the affected limb from being used for its regular function is defined as a blemish. Another principle that is considered with regard to blemishes is the distinction between permanent and temporary blemishes. If the blemish is permanent, then, as mentioned, the firstborn animal may be slaughtered outside the Temple. Other sacrificial offerings with permanent blemishes may be redeemed from their sacrificial status. But if the blemish is temporary, the animal may not be sacrificed as an offering or slaughtered while the blemish exists; nevertheless, immediately after the blemish is healed, the animal is again fit to be sacrificed as an offering. This tractate discusses which blemishes are defined as permanent and which are defined as temporary, as well as how to distinguish between them. In addition, the tractate discusses certain blemishes that by Torah law do not disqualify the animal as an offering or render it permitted for slaughter outside the Temple, but that nevertheless, by rabbinic law, disqualify the animal from being sacrificed on the altar, since the Sages felt that it is not suitable to sacrifice such an animal.

Following the discussion of the blemishes that disqualify an animal as an offering, the tractate discusses human blemishes. The Torah explicitly states that a priest who has a blemish is disqualified from performing the Temple service. Some blemishes disqualify both priests and animals, while some disqualify only one or the other, due to the different body structure of humans and animals. In addition to these blemishes, there is a lengthy list of unusual physical features that disqualify priests from performing the Temple service due to their appearance.

The tractate concludes with a discussion of the mitzva of animal tithe. The Torah states that an Israelite must count his flock, and every tenth animal is sanctified, regardless of whether or not it is blemished. If it is not blemished, the owner must sacrifice it as an offering. Its blood and sacrificial portions are burned on the altar, and the owner eats the meat in Jerusalem. This mitzva is similar in a number of respects to that of the male firstborn of a kosher animal, which is one of the primary themes of this tractate. With regard to the manner in which they are sacrificed, these two offerings share several details: In neither case does the owner place his hands on the head of the offering, the blood of both offerings is poured once on the base of the altar, and both can be eaten for two days and the night between them, anywhere in Jerusalem, although a firstborn offering is eaten by the priest, while the animal tithe offering is eaten by the owner.

Aside from these similarities, there are also other important aspects of these two offerings that distinguish them from other sacrificial animals: A firstborn animal and animal tithe are not consecrated at the owner's initiative, as a firstborn animal is automatically consecrated at birth, and animal tithe is determined based upon which animal is the tenth one to emerge from the pen. In contrast to other sacrificial animals, both of these animals are sanctified even if they are blemished and disqualified from being sacrificed as offerings. Moreover, if they develop a blemish, they cannot be redeemed, though they are permitted for consumption without being redeemed. This principle, that the sanctity of these animals is independent of whether a person consecrated them and independent of their suitability for being brought as an offering, is the reason that these mitzvot apply even after the destruction of the Temple. Although a firstborn animal and animal tithe are sanctified as offerings, it is apparent that their primary purpose is not necessarily their sacrifice, but rather the consecration itself, i.e., the giving of these animals to God.

Tractate Bekhorot contains only a small amount of aggada, most of which is found in Chapter One.

The tractate contains nine chapters in total, each of which deals primarily with one subject.

Chapter One discusses the halakhot of a firstborn donkey, such as which donkeys are subject to having their offspring counted as a firstborn, and which are not.

Chapter Two discusses similar issues with regard to the male firstborn of a kosher animal.

Chapter Three primarily discusses the halakha in situations where a kosher animal gives birth but it is not known with certainty whether or not the offspring is a firstborn, as well as the prohibition against shearing a firstborn animal.

Chapter Four discusses the transfer of a firstborn kosher animal from its Israelite owner to the priest, as well as the ways in which it is permitted for the priest to slaughter the animal when a blemish develops. In this chapter, the halakhot of those individuals who are suspected of violating a prohibition are also discussed.

Chapter Five is a continuation of Chapter Four, and addresses situations where there is suspicion or knowledge that a blemish was intentionally caused to a firstborn animal, as well as situations where a firstborn animal was slaughtered without supervision by an expert in the halakhot of blemishes.

Chapter Six lists the various blemishes that disqualify an animal from being sacrificed upon the altar and permit a firstborn animal to be slaughtered outside the Temple.

Chapter Seven discusses blemishes found in humans that disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service.

Chapter Eight discusses and defines the two types of human firstborns: A firstborn with regard to sanctity, which is dependent upon being the first to emerge from its mother's womb, and a firstborn with regard to inheritance.

Finally, Chapter Nine surveys all of the halakhot related to the mitzva of animal tithe.