First Fruits and other Gifts to Priests Outside the Sanctuary

Twenty-four gifts were given to the Priests, and they are all explained in the Torah, and the covenant with Aharon includes all of them. And every Priest that does not recognize these gifts, he is not part of the Priestly tribe, and one must not give him any of these gifts.

Every [priest] who partakes of one of the presents [given to the priests] that is sanctified should recite a blessing: '[Blessed are You].. who sanctified us with the sanctity of Aaron and commanded us to partake of...' [mentioning the particular type of present he is eating].

Eight of the presents may be eaten by the priests only in the Sanctuary, within the walls of the Temple Courtyard. Five of them may be eaten only in Jerusalem within the walls of the city. According to Scriptural Law, there are five presents that are acquired [by the priests] only in Eretz Yisrael. There are five presents that they acquire both in Eretz Yisrael and in the Diaspora. And there is one present that that they acquire from the Temple's [property].

What are the eight that may be eaten only in Temple? The meat of the sin offering - this includes both sin-offerings of fowl and sin-offerings of animals, the meat of a guilt-offering, whether a definite guilt-offering or a guilt-offering brought because of doubt, communal peace offerings, [the portion of] the omer offering that remains, [the portion of] an Israelite's meal offering that remains, the two loaves [offered on Shavuot], the show bread, and the log of oil brought by a metzora. [All of] these may be eaten only in the Temple.

What are the five that are eaten only in Jerusalem? The breast and the leg of the peace offering, the portion granted [the priests] from the thanksgiving offering, the portion granted [the priests] from the ram brought by a nazirite, the firstborn of a kosher animal, and the first fruits. [all of] these may be eaten only in Jerusalem.

What are the five [that are given] in Eretz Yisrael? Terumah, terumat ma'aser, and challah - these three are sanctified, the first shearings, and an ancestral field [that was consecrated] - these are ordinary property. [The priests are granted] these according to Scriptural Law only in Eretz Yisrael. Terumot and challot from Eretz Yisrael may be eaten only in Eretz Yisrael.

What are the five that the priests acquire in all places? The presents [given when slaughtering animals], [the money given for] the redemption of a firstborn [son], [the lamb given for] the redemption of a firstborn [donkey], [property] stolen from a convert [who died heirless], and dedication offerings. These five are ordinary property.

The present that they acquire from the Temple's property is the hides from the burnt-offerings. This also applies to the hides from other sacrifices of the most holy order. They are all given to the priests.

The eight presents that may be eaten only in the Sanctuary are all sacrifices of the most holy order. They may be eaten only by male priests, as will be explained in the appropriate place. Concerning them, [Leviticus 6:22] states: 'All males among the priesthood shall partake of it.

The five [presents that may be eaten only] in Jerusalem are all sacrifices of lesser sanctity. [Both] males and females [of the priestly family] may partake of them. Concerning them, [Numbers 18:11] states: 'To you, and your sons and your daughters with you have I given them as an eternal decree.' [Although a woman may partake of them,] they are granted only to the males of the priestly family. For they are given to the men of the watch [serving in the Temple]. The fat and the blood of the firstborn [of kosher animals] was offered and only a male was allowed to offer it. Similarly, the hides of the sacrifices of the most sacred order, an ancestral field, dedication offerings, and the stolen property of a convert, are acquired only by the men of the priestly watch [of that week], as will be explained. Similarly, the redemption of firstborn [sons is given] only to males of the priestly family, for concerning it, [Numbers 3:48] states: 'And you shall give the money to Aaron and his sons.' [Similarly, the redemption of] a firstborn donkey [is given] to males of the priestly family, for all the laws of the firstborn are parallel. [The redemption is given] to males and not females.

Thus you have learned that the presents given [directly] to females like males are five: terumah, terumat ma'aser, challah, the presents given when slaughtering an animal, and the first shearings. What is the source that teaches that the first shearings may be given to a woman of the priestly family? 'The first of your grain, your wine, and your oil, and the first shearings of your flock shall you give to him' [Deuteronomy 18:4]. [The verse establishes an equivalence:] Just as [terumah,] the first of the grain, may be given to females as well as males, so too, the first shearings.

Our Sages reckoned these presents in another manner, stating: 24 presents for the priests were given to Aaron. They are 10 in the Temple, 4 in Jerusalem, and 10 in the outlying areas.

The ten in the Temple are: a) an animal brought as a sin-offering, b) a fowl brought as a sin-offering, c) a guilt-offering, d) a guilt-offering brought because of doubt, e) the communal peace-offerings, f) the log of oil brought by a nazirite, g) the two breads, h) the show bread, i) the remnants of the meal offering, and j) the remnants of the omer offering.

The four in Jerusalem are: a) the firstborn [kosher animal], b) the first fruits, c) the portion granted [the priests] from the thanksgiving offering and the portion granted [the priests] from the ram brought by a nazirite, and d) the hides of the sacrifices.

The ten in the outlying areas are: a) terumah, b) terumat ma'aser, c) challah, d) the first shearings, e) the presents given when slaughtering an animal, f) the redemption of a firstborn [son], g) the redemption of a firstborn donkey, h) a field that was designated as a dedication offering, i) an ancestral field, and j) the stolen property of a convert. According to this reckoning, all of the portions given the priests from sacrifices of lesser sanctity are considered as one present. This includes: the breast and the leg that is given [the priest] from every peace offering, together with the bread that is given with them if [the peace offering] was a thanksgiving offering and the foreleg given the priest from the nazirite's ram, with the bread given with it, and the breast and the leg. Since they are all peace offerings, all of the portions given the priests are considered as one present.

AIl of the presents that are dependent on the sacrifices will be explained in their appropriate places in the laws of sacrifices. Similarly, [the laws pertaining to] the stolen property of a convert will be explained in Hilchot Gezeilah. We have already explained the laws governing an ancestral field and dedication offerings in Hilchot Arachin and the laws of terumah and terumat ma'aser in Hilchot Terumah. In the present halachot, I will explain the laws of the [priestly] presents that are not dependent on the sacrifices: the first fruits, challah, the presents given when slaughtering an animal, the first shearings, the redemption of a firstborn son, the redemption of a firstborn donkey.

A positive commandment to bring the first ripe fruit to the temple. This is not custom to bring except to the temple and in the land of Israel, as it says (Exodus 23:19, 34:26): "Beginning of the fruit of your land you shall bring to the house of Hashem your G-d". And those who bring first fruit from the cities of Sichon and Og and from Syria. For one who buys from Syria is as if buying from Jerusalem. [But from Amon, Moab and Babylonia], even though they are obligated in Tithes, they are not brought for Bikkurim. And if one brought Bikkurim from outside of the land of Israel, they are not considered Bikkurim.

One does not bring Bikkurim except for the seven species which are praiseworthy to the land. They are: Wheat, Barley, Grapes, Figs, Pomegranates, Olives, and Dates. If one brought not from these seven species of fruit, they were not sanctified.

We do not bring [first fruits] from the dates in the mountains, nor from the fruit from the valleys, not from oil-producing olives that are not of the highest quality, but rather from dates from the valleys and fruit from the mountains, for they are of the highest quality. If a person brought first fruits of inferior quality, e.g., dates from the mountains, figs that were perforated and had oil applied to them, dusty and smoked grapes, they are not consecrated.

We may not bring liquids as the first fruits with the exception of [oil from] olives and [wine from] grapes, as [implied by Deuteronomy 26:2 which speaks of]: 'the fruit of the land,' i.e., [the fruit and] not a beverage. If one brought beverages, they are not accepted.

People who are close to Jerusalem should bring fresh figs and grapes. People who are distant should bring dried figs and raisins.

The first fruits should not be brought before Shavuot, for that holiday is referred to as 'the harvest festival, the first fruits of your work.' If one brings [them at that time], we do not accept them from him. Instead, they should be left there until Shavuot, at which time, he should make the declaration concerning them. Similarly, the first fruits should not be brought after Chanukah. For first fruits that ripen after Chanukah are considered as being of the coming year. They should be left until Shavuot.

The first fruits may not be brought from produce of the present harvest for produce of the previous harvest or from produce of the previous harvest for produce of the present harvest. What is implied? One should not bring produce that budded before the 15th of Shvat as first fruits for produce that budded after the 15th of Shvat. [This applies] both to produce that is planted and produce that grows on its own, as [implied by Numbers 18: 13]: 'The first fruits of everything in their land.'

The obligation of the first fruits applies to the produce of partners, [implied by]: 'The first fruits of everything in their land.'

When produce grows in a flower pot, even if it has a hole or it grows in a ship, one should not bring first fruits from them at all. [for the prooftext] speaks of 'their land.' One should, however, bring from produce that grows on a roof or in a ruin.

[In all the following situations,] a person should not bring the first fruits from the produce that grows in one domain or the produce that grows in another domain. [These situations include] one who plants a tree in his field and extends it into his colleague's field or into the public domain, or the trunk of the tree was in his field and he extended its end in his field but there was a public road or a private path interrupting between the trunk and the end which was extended. [This is derived from Exodus 23:19]: "the first fruits of your land.' [Implied is that] all the growth [of the tree] must be from your land.'

If his colleague gave him permission [to implant the end] in his property even for a brief time, he may bring the first fruits. If the tree was close to his colleague's boundary or leaned into his colleague's field [and he planted there], even though he was obligated to distance [his planting], he may bring [the first fruits] and recite the declaration, for Joshua gave the land [to our people] as an inheritance with that intent.

Sharecroppers, tenant farmers, men of force who compel the owners [to sell] their land and purchase it for a low price, and robbers may not bring first fruits, because [the prooftext] states: 'the first fruits of your land.' [This applies] even when the owners despair [of recovering their land].

When a person purchases a tree in a field belonging to a friend, he may not bring [the first fruits], because he does not own land. [If he purchases] three [trees], he does own land. Even if he formally acquired only the trees, it is as if he owns land. If he purchased one tree and the land around it, he should bring [the first fruits].

When a person purchases fruit that has been harvested and purchases the land [on which they grew], he should bring the first fruits, because he possesses both land and the fruits. When one sells a colleague fruit, but not the land, even when the fruit is still attached to the land, [neither the seller, nor the purchaser may bring the first fruits]. The seller may not bring them, because he does not own the fruits. The purchaser may not bring them, because he does not own the land. If the seller buys the fruit back from the purchaser, he may bring [the first fruits], because he [now] owns [both] the land and its produce.

When a person sells his property to a gentile and later purchases it back from him, he must bring the first fruits from it according to Scriptural Law. [The rationale is that] it is not absolved from the mitzvah because of the gentile's purchase, as we explained.

[Although] one nullified an asherah, the first fruits should not be brought from its produce. For the first fruits are like the sacrifices of the Temple.

There is no set measure for the first fruits according to Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic Law, one should give one sixtieth of the crop. If one desires to set aside his entire crop as first fruits, he may.

When a person separated his first fruits and afterwards added to them or adorned them, the addition is also considered as the first fruits. When does the above apply? When he brought [the first fruits] from Eretz Yisrael. If, however, he brought them from Transjordan or Syria, they are not as the first fruits. Even though they are not considered as the first fruits, they should only be eaten in a state of ritual purity. No matter where it is from, the first fruits should only be adorned with fruit from the seven species [mentioned in the praise of Eretz Yisrael].

How should one separate the first fruits? A person descends to his field, sees a fig tree, a cluster [of grapes], and/or a pomegranate tree that has budded, and ties them with a reed. He should say: "These are the first fruits.' They become designated as first fruits even though they are attached to the ground after they have been given that title, even though they have not ripened entirely. When they ripen and are reaped from the ground, it is not necessary to designate them again. If he did not designate them while attached or call them first fruits and then he reaped them, he should designate them after he reaps them. If his entire harvest becomes impure, he should not designate the impure produce as first fruits. Instead, as an initial preference, he should set aside other produce as first fruits for the impure produce. It appears to me that if he does not have other produce, to separate [as first fruits], he should not set them aside to be destroyed. Similarly, it appears to me that if the first fruits become impure, he should not use them as kindling for a furnace, because they are like objects consecrated for the Temple.

When a person set aside his first fruits and they rotted away, were taken by others, lost, stolen, or became impure, he is obligated to set aside others in place of them, as [Exodus 23:19] states: '...bring to the house of G-d your Lord.' This teaches that one is liable to replace them until he brings them to the Temple Mount.

If a person set aside his first fruits to bring them to Jerusalem himself, he should not send them with an agent If, however, he initially harvested them with the intent of sending them [to the Temple] with an agent, it is permitted for him to do so.

The first fruits are given to the men of the priestly watch [on duty at that time]. They divide them among themselves like the Temple sacrifices. We have already explained that [the first fruits] are called terumah. Therefore a non-priest who partakes of the first fruits anywhere is liable for death at the hand of heaven, provided he partook of them after they entered the walls of Jerusalem.

If a portion [of the first fruits] were inside Jerusalem and a portion were outside, [a non-priest] is liable for death for the portion that is inside and it is considered as consecrated property in all contexts. The portion that is outside is considered as ordinary property in all contexts.

When a priest partakes of the first fruits outside of Jerusalem after they have entered inside [the city's] walls, he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Deuteronomy 12:17] states: 'You may not eat within your gates... the terumah of your hand.' [The latter term] refers to the first fruits, as we explained in Hilchot Terumah. Similarly, if a priest partakes of them in Jerusalem before they are placed in the Temple courtyard, he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as if he partook of them outside of Jerusalem, because [the first fruits] must be placed down in the Temple Courtyard as [ibid. 26:10] states: 'And you shall place them before the altar of G-d your Lord.'

After the person bringing [the first fruits] places them down in the Temple Courtyard, they are permitted to the priest even though the former has not recited the declaration over them. When the first fruits were taken out of their place and then returned, they are permitted to be eaten.

[The laws applying to] partaking of the first fruits are identical [to those applying] to partaking of terumah in all of their details. In addition, [the following stringencies apply with regard] to first fruits. They are forbidden to one in the acute state of onein mourning. They must be brought to [Jerusalem]. And a priest who is ritually pure who partook of the first fruits that were impure receives lashes like an Israelite who is ritually pure who partook of the second tithe that became impure. [These concepts] do not apply with regard to terumah.

What is the source which teaches that the first fruits are forbidden to an onein? With regard to these fruits, [Deuteronomy 26:11] states: 'And you shall rejoice in all the good.' Implied is that they have to be eaten in a state of happiness and not in a state of acute mourning. One who partakes of [these fruits] in a state of acute mourning is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.

The first fruits must [be brought in] a container, as [ibid.:2] states: 'And you shall place them in a container.' The most preferable way of performing the mitzvah is to bring each type of fruit in a separate container. If one brings them [all] in one container, he has fulfilled his obligation. [Even in such an instance,] he should not bring them mixed together. Instead, he should bring the barley below, wheat on top of it, olives on top of it, dates on top of them, pomegranates on top of them, and figs on the top of the container. There should be a substance, e.g., palm leaves, wild grass, or leaves, or the like, that intervenes between each type of produce. One should surround the figs with clusters of grapes from the outside.

When a person brings the first fruits in a metal container, the priest takes them and returns the container to its owner. If he brings them in a reed or grass basket or the like, both the first fruits and the basket should be given to the priests. If the first fruits become impure, the baskets should not be given to the priests.

When they would bring the first fruits, they would also bring turtle doves and doves in their hands. Similarly, they would hang turtle doves and doves from the sides of the baskets in order to adorn the first fruits. Those that were with the baskets would be offered as burnt offerings and those they would bring by hand would be given to the priests [as presents].

It is a positive commandment to make a declaration in the Temple concerning the first fruits when they are brought. One should begin and say [Deuteronomy 26:3-10]: 'I am making a statement to G-d your Lord that I have come to the land... An Aramean [sought] to destroy my ancestor...' until he completes the entire passage, concluding: '...You gave me, O G-d.' [This declaration] may only be made in the Holy Tongue, as it states: 'And you shall respond and say.'

At first, those who knew how to read would read [the passage themselves] and those who did not know how to read would read after one who read for them. [As a result,] those who did not know how to read would refrain from bringing [the first fruits] so that they would not be embarrassed. [Hence] the court ordained that the passage would be read for one who knows how to read like it is read for one who does not know.

A person who brings the first fruits is permitted to give them to his servant or his relative [to carry] throughout the journey until he reaches the Temple Mount. When he reaches the Temple Mount, even if he is a king of Israel, he must place the basket on his own shoulder and proceed until he reaches the Temple Courtyard. He should read [the declaration,] 'I am making a statement to G-d your Lord today...,' while the basket is still on his shoulder. He then removes the basket from his shoulder. While he holds it by its edge, the priest puts his hand below it and raises it [up and down and to all four directions]. He then reads: An Aramean [sought] to destroy my ancestor and he descended to Egypt...' until he completes the entire passage.' He then places the first fruits at the side of the altar, at the southwest corner, on the south side of the altar. He then prostrates himself and departs. What is the source which teaches that the first fruits must be raised [up and down and to all four directions]? [The above prooftext states:] 'And the priest shall take the basket from your hand,' including [an obligation to] raise the first fruits [up and down and to all four directions]. Just as [the first fruits] must be raised [up and down and to all four directions], so to they require that a peace offering be brought with them and song [accompany their offering], for with regard to them, [ibid.:11] states: 'And you shall rejoice in all the good.' [Now,] with regard to the festivals, [ibid. states: 'And you shall rejoice on your festivals.' [An association is drawn between the two:] Just as the happiness of the festivals is marked by peace offerings, so too, peace offerings [are required] here. [Nevertheless,] these offerings are not absolute requirements.

When is a song pronounced over them? When they reach the Temple courtyard. The Levites would begin proclaiming: 'I will exalt You G-d, for You have drawn me up...' (Psalms 30:2 .

[When bringing] the first fruits, it is necessary that one remain [in Jerusalem] overnight. What is implied? When a person brought his first fruits to the Temple, made the declaration, and offered his peace offerings, he should not depart from Jerusalem that day to return home. Instead, he should stay in Jerusalem overnight and return to his city on the following day, as [Deuteronomy 16:7] states: 'And you shall turn back in the morning and return to your tent.' [That verse teaches a general principle:] All occasions when you turn from the Temple when you visit it should only be in the morning. Thus the first fruits require seven factors: a) that they be brought to [Jerusalem], b) [in a] container, c) that the declaration be recited, d) that they be accompanied by a peace offering, e) and song, f) that they be raised [up and down and to all four directions], and g) that the person stay overnight [in Jerusalem].

Whenever anyone brings the first fruits, it is necessary that a [peace] offering be brought, song [be recited], they be raised [up and down and to all four directions] and the person remain in Jerusalem overnight. The declaration, however, is not a universal requirement. There are some who are obligated to bring the first fruits, but who do not recite the declaration over them.

The following must bring [the first fruits], but may not recite the declaration: a woman, a tumtum and an androgynous - for there is a doubt whether they are considered as a female; none of these can say "[the land] which You gave me," and similarly, a guardian, a servant, and an agent, because they cannot say "which You gave me."

A proselyte brings and reads, as it is said to Abraham, "A father of the many peoples I have made you..." This means that he was the father to the entire world that entered under the wings of the Shechina, and the promise was to Abraham first that his children would inherit the land. So too, priests and levites bring and read because they have open cities.

A person who purchases two trees in his colleague's field must bring [the first fruits], but may not recite the declaration. [The rationale is that] there is a doubt whether he has a right to the land [on which the trees stand] or not. What should he do? He should first consecrate them to the Temple treasury for it is possible that they are ordinary produce and non-consecrated food is not brought into the Temple Courtyard. The priest then redeems them from the Temple treasury and partakes of them. He must separate terumah and the tithes from them, because of the possibility that they are ordinary produce. He must give the tithes from them to the priests, because it is a possibility that they are first fruits and forbidden to non-priests. He should not bring them himself, but instead, send them via an agent so that [the fact] that the declaration [is not recited] will not prevent them from being eaten. For whenever a declaration concerning [first fruits] is not fit to be made because of a doubt concerning their status, [the fact that] a declaration [is not recited] prevents it [from being eaten].

If one set aside his first fruits and then sold his field, he should bring them, but not make the declaration, because he cannot say: "[the land] which You gave me," since it no longer belongs to him. The purchaser is not required to separate other first fruits, because the seller has already separated them. If, however, he does separate them, he should bring them, but not make the declaration. From another species [of produce], he should set aside the first fruits, bring them, and make the declaration.

When a person sells [the right to harvest] the produce of his field, the purchaser should bring [the first fruits], but not make the declaration. [The rationale is that] the acquisition of the produce is not equivalent to the acquisition of [the land] itself. When, however, one brings first fruits from the property of his wife, he makes the declaration even though he does not own the actual land, as [implied by Deuteronomy 26:11]: "which G-d, your Lord, has given you and your household." Even if his wife dies after he has set aside [the first fruits] and he is in the midst of his journey [to Jerusalem], he should bring [the first fruits] and make the declaration.

When a person sells his field or sells trees and the land around them in the era when the Jubilee year is observed, [the purchaser] should bring [the first fruits] and make the declaration in the first Jubilee. [The rationale is that] the seller has not taken for granted that the land will be returned to him. If, however, he sold it again in the second Jubilee, [the purchaser] should bring [the first fruits], but should not make the declaration. For he is certain that he will receive only the produce, and the acquisition of the produce is not equivalent to the acquisition of [the land] itself.

When a person set aside his first fruits and became mortally ill, the one who is fit to inherit his [estate] should bring the first fruits without making the declaration. When a person set aside his first fruits and sent them with an agent, but the agent died in the midst of the journey, even if the owner brought them, he should not make the delaration. [The rationale is that the phrase (Deuteronomy 26:2 :] "And you shall take... and you shall bring" does not apply unless the taking and the bringing are as one.

When a person set aside his first fruits, but they were lost before they reached the Temple Mount and therefore he separated others instead of them, he should bring the second fruits, but should not make the declaration. [The rationale is that] he cannot say [that he is bringing] "the first fruits of the land," for those that he is bringing are not the first fruits. One is not liable for an additional fifth [for partaking of] the produce separated second, as [he would had he partaken of] the first fruits.

When a person brings his first fruits and they become impure in the Temple Courtyard, he should spill out the basket there. He does not make the delaration.

If a person brought his first fruits from one species and made the declaration and afterwards brings first fruits from another species, he should not make the declaration for them. [This is derived from the phrase (Deuteronomy 26:3 :] "I am making a statement today." [Implied is that] he makes one statement and not two.

If a person separated his first fruits and then the spring [that served as his field's water supply] dried up or the tree [from which they were reaped] was cut down, he should bring them, but should not make the declaration. [The rationale is that] he is like someone who no longer possesses the land, because it has been ruined.

When a person brings his first fruits between Sukkot and Chanukah- even if he set them aside before Sukkot - he should bring them without making the declaration, [as implied by Deuteronomy 26:11]: "You shall rejoice in all the good." [Implied is that] the declaration should be made only in a time of happiness, [i.e.,] between Shavuot and the end of Sukkot. All individuals other than these must bring their first fruits and make the declaration.

The first fruits, the terumot, challah, the principal and the fifth, and the presents given when slaughtering an animal are a priest's private property. He may use them to purchase servants, land, or a non-kosher animal. A debtor of his may collect them as payment for his debt and a woman may take them in lieu of the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. And they may be used to purchase a Torah scroll.

The first fruits and the terumot are forbidden to be eaten by non-priests. [Generally,] when the first fruits are mixed with ordinary produce, they are permitted if there is 101 times the original amount as is the law with regard to terumah. Nevertheless, if they become mixed with the same species of ordinary produce in Jerusalem, [the mixture] is forbidden even if the slightest amount of [the first fruits are mixed in] as [is the law regarding] the second tithe. [The rationale is that] since [they are located in Jerusalem,] the place where one partakes of them, they are considered like an entity that could become permitted. Although the first fruits are forbidden to non-priests even in Jerusalem, nevertheless, even the slightest presence of them in a mixture causes it to be forbidden. Even if one sowed the first fruits after they were brought to Jerusalem, even the slightest amount of produce that grows from them causes a mixture to become forbidden. If, however, one sows the first fruits before they were brought to Jerusalem, the produce that grows from them is ordinary produce.

How are the first fruits brought to Jerusalem? All of [the inhabitants of] the towns in a regional area gather in the central town of the regional area, so that they will not ascend to Jerusalem as individuals, for [Proverbs 14:28] teaches: "The glory of the King is among the multitude of people." They come and sleep in the city's thoroughfare, but they do not enter the homes lest they contract impurity because of being under the same shelter as a corpse. In the morning, the leader calls out: "Arise and let us ascend to Zion, to G-d our Lord." An ox with its horns glazed with gold leads the procession. A crown of olive [branches] are placed on its head, to publicize that the first fruits come from the seven species [for which Eretz Yisrael is praised]. A flute plays before them until they arrive close to Jerusalem. They walk the entire way and proclaim: "I rejoiced when it was told me: 'Let us go to the house of G-d.' They would travel for only two thirds of the day. When they arrived close to Jerusalem they sent emissaries to notify the inhabitants of Jerusalem and they adorned their first fruits and beautified them. If they had [some] produce that was fresh and other produce that was dried, the fresh produce was placed on top. The leaders of the Israelites and of the priests and the Temple treasurers would go out from Jerusalem to greet them. [The size of the welcoming party] was proportionate to the number of people who come. If many people come, many go out to greet them; if few, few. When they have all entered the gates of Jerusalem, they begin declaring: "Our legs were standing in your gates, O Jerusalem" (ibid.).

All of the artisans in Jerusalem would stand in honor of them and would greet them: "Our brethren, the inhabitants of so-and-so, you have come in peace." They proceed through Jerusalem while the flute is sounded until they reach the Temple Mount. When they reach the Temple Mount, each one should carry the first fruits on his shoulders and say: "Halleluyah. Praise G-d in His holiness" [Psalm 150:1] until [the conclusion of that psalm]: "May all the souls praise You." They proceed through the Temple Mount until they reach the Temple Courtyard. When they reach the Temple Courtyard, the Levites open with the song [Psalm 30]: "I will exalt You, for You have drawn me up..."

It is a positive commandment to separate a portion that is raised up from the dough [and given] to a priest, as [Numbers 15:20] states: "Raise up the first of your dough, the challah, as an offering...." According to Scriptural Law, this first portion does not have a minimum measure. Instead, even if one set aside a portion the size of a barley corn, he has absolved the entire dough. When a person designates his entire dough as challah, his deeds are of no consequence unless he leaves a portion of it [for himself].

According to Rabbinic Law, one should separate one twenty-fourth of the dough, so that there will be a [significant] present for the priest. [This is derived from Deuteronomy 14:4 which] states: "Give him," i.e., give him something that is fit to be called a gift. A baker who makes a dough to be sold in the market place should separate one forty-eighth. [The rationale is that] since his dough is larger, this measure contains [enough] to be a [significant] present.

Even when a private person makes dough for [the wedding] celebration of his son, he should separate one twenty-fourth even though it is large, so as not to make a distinction in [the requirements of] a dough made by a private person. [Conversely,] when a baker makes a small dough, [he must separate only] one forty-eighth, so as not to make a distinction in [the requirements of] a dough made by a baker.

If a dough became impure unknowingly or because of forces beyond one's control, one need not separate more than one forty-eighth. If he purposefully made it impure, he must separate a twenty-fourth, so that the sinner will not benefit. Impure challah is permitted to be used by a priest as kindling fuel like impure terumah.

According to Scriptural law, we are only obligated to separate challah in Eretz Yisrael, as [Numbers 15:19] states: "When you partake of the bread of the land...," and only when the entire Jewish people are located there, as [ibid.:18] states: "When you enter," i.e., when you all enter and not only when a portion of you enter. For this reason, in the present era - and even in the era of Ezra in Eretz Yisrael - [the observance of] challah is only a Rabbinic decree, as we explained with regard to terumah.

When the produce of the Diaspora is brought to Eretz [Yisrael], challah must be separated from it. When produce from Eretz [Yisrael], are brought to the Diaspora, they are exempt. [This is derived from ibid.:] "to which I will bring you." [Implied is that in that land,] you are liable, whether for the produce of the land itself or for that of other lands.

Challah should also be separated in the Diaspora by Rabbinic decree so that the Jewish people will not forget the laws of challah. Challah from the Diaspora should not be brought to Eretz Yisrael, just as terumah and first fruits from there should not be brought [to Eretz Yisrael]. If one should bring [such challah], it should be left to the day before Pesach and burned like terumah.

There are three different sets of laws that apply to challah in three different lands. In the entire area that was settled by those who returned from Babylonia until Kziv, one challah should be separated according to the appropriate measure and the priests may partake of it. In the remaining portions of Eretz Yisrael that were settled by the Jews who came out of Egypt, but not by those who returned from Babylonia - i.e., from Kziv until Amanah - two challot should be separated. One should be burnt and one should be eaten. Why do we separate two challot there? Because the first challah is impure, because this land was not sanctified in the time of Ezra and the first sanctification was nullified after the Jews were exiled. [Nevertheless,] since [the land] is from Eretz Yisrael, a challah - one forty-eighth [of the dough] is separated and is burnt. A second challah is also separated and given to a priest to eat, so that people will not say that pure terumah should be burnt. For the first challah was burnt even though it did not contract impurity in a manner that was known to all. This second challah does not have a minimum measure. Instead, one may separate whatever he desires, because it is a Rabbinic ordinance. In all of the lands from Amanah and beyond, whether in Syria or other lands, two challot should be separated: One is burnt so that people should not say we saw impure terumah being eaten and one is eaten so that the laws of challah will not be forgotten by the Jewish people. [Since] both of these are Rabbinic institutions, it is preferable to make the one that is eaten larger. Accordingly, there is no minimum measure for the one that is burnt. Even the slightest amount [is acceptable]. The one which is eaten should be one forty-eighth [of the dough]. It is permitted to be eaten by zavim and zavot- and needless to say, other people who are ritually impure.

At this time, when there is no pure dough because of impurity from contact with the dead, challah is separated once in all Israel, [which is] 1/48th, and it is burned because it is impure. And this has a foundation from the Torah. But from Keziv to Amanah, a second challahis separated and given to the priest, but this has no required amount, as was the matter in the past.

Since its main obligation is only rabbinic, challah outside of [Israel] - even though it is impure - is not prohibited to be consumed by a priest unless he has impurity that emits from his body, such as those who have had seminal emissions or irregular genital flows, mestruant women, those who have recently birthed and lepers. Therefore, if there was a minor priest boy outside of Israel - whether in Syria or other lands - if they want to, they may separate one challah as 1/48th and it may be given to eat to a minor priest boy who has not yet seen a seminal emission or to a minor priest girl who has not yet menstruated, and there is no need to do a second separation to burn it.

Also, if there is a an adult priest there who has immersed [to purify himself from genital flows] - even if the sun has not yet set for him [on the day of his immersion], and even though he is impure from contact with the dead - he may eat this first challah, and there is no need to do a second separation outside of Israel.

A niddah and the like may recite a blessing and separate challah in the Diaspora. For she is not cautioned against touching the challah, only against partaking of it. If there is a priest who was a minor or [an adult] priest who immersed himself who is permitted to partake of it as we explained, he may partake of it, [eating] together with a non-priest at the same table. [The rationale is that] it does not create a forbidden mixture, even if there are equal quantities of it and ordinary food. It may be given to an unlearned priest because [the woman] is impure because of the air of the Diaspora, and the prohibition against a priest actively seeking to receive his presents does not apply in this instance. If a person desires to eat first and then separate the challah in the Diaspora, he is permitted, for the fundamental obligation is Rabbinic in origin.

Challah is called terumah. Therefore it may only be separated from [dough] in the same location like terumah. And as an initial preference, one may not separate pure [dough as challah] for impure dough.

All of those individuals concerning whom it was said they should not separate terumah and if they separate it, the separation is invalid, are governed by the same laws with regard to challah. In all situations concerning which it was said that terumah should not be separated from this type of produce for another, challah should also not be separated. Whoever may not partake of terumah, may not partake of challah. Whoever may partake of terumah may partake of challah.

A blind person and an intoxicated person may separate challah as an initial preference. For with regard to dough, there is no inferior or superior portions that he must distinguish and separate from the superior portion.

One who purchases bread from a baker is obligated [to separate] challah. He may separate a portion from bread freshly taken from the oven for bread that has cooled or from bread that has cooled for bread freshly taken from the oven. [This applies] even with regard to many trays of bread.

The obligation [to separate] challah applies only to [dough from] the five species of grain: wheat barley, rye, oats, and spelt, as [implied by Numbers 15:19]: "When you partake of the bread of the land." The term "bread" refers only to a loaf made from these five species. If, however, one makes bread from rice, millet, or other legumes, there is no obligation of challah at all.

Although there is no obligation to separate terumah from leket, shichachah, pe'ah, grain which is ownerless, and grain which did not reach a third of its growth, there is an obligation to separate challah from these. Similarly, there is an obligation to separate challah [from dough made from grain in the following circumstances]: the tithes were separated from the grain early while it was still stalks and terumat ma'aser was separated from it, even though the portion of the great terumah is still included in it, [grain that was from] the second tithe or consecrated property that was redeemed, the extra [portions of barley harvested for] the omer offering, the two loaves [prepared to be offered on Shavuot], and [the loaves prepared for] the showbread which were redeemed.

When a dough was made from grain from the second tithe in Jerusalem or from grain from the Sabbatical year, or when there is a doubt whether the dough was made from a mixture of terumah and ordinary produce, there is an obligation to separate challah. A mixture of terumah and ordinary produce is exempt from the obligation of challah.

The loaves for the thanksgiving offering and the wafers for the nazirite offering which a person made for himself are exempt from the obligation of challah, for they are sanctified. [If they were made] to sell in the market place to nazirites and to those bringing thanksgiving offerings, there is an obligation to separate challah, since [the baker] has the intent that if they are not sold [for sacrificial purposes], he will eat them.

There is an obligation to separate challah from a dough made for partners and a dough made for many people.

When a person makes dough using grain that is tevel - whether the challah is separated before terumah or the terumah separated before challah - what he did is effective. If he separated the challah first, he should not partake of it until he separates terumah and terumat ma'aser for it. If he separated terumah first, he should not partake of it until he separates challah.

When a person makes a dough with the intent of feeding the bread baked from it to a domesticated animal or a wild animal, it is exempt from challah. There is an obligation to separate challah from a dough made for dogs which is eaten by the shepherds. A dough made by a gentile is exempt from challah.

If a gentile and a Jew were partners in a dough and the portion owned by the Jew was large enough to be liable for challah, it is liable for challah.

When a gentile separates challah even in Eretz Yisrael, it is not challah. Instead, we inform him that he does not have to [observe this mitzvah. The dough separated] may be eaten by a non-priest. Why do we not suspect that maybe the dough belonged to a Jew and he gave it to a gentile so that it will be exempt? Because if a Jew wanted to exempt himself he could do so by making his dough smaller than the required measure.

[The following laws apply when a person] mixes flour from wheat and rice flour and makes a dough: If it has the flavor of grain, challah must be separated from it. If not, it is exempt. Even if one placed yeast from wheat into a dough from rice, one is obligated to separate challah from it if it has the flavor of wheat. If it does not have that flavor, it is exempt.

There is an obligation to separate challah in all [the following instances]: a dough that was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey, or with boiling water, or one in which spices where placed, water was boiled and flour was placed inside of it and a dough was kneaded. [And challah must be separated when] dough was baked whether in an oven or [in a pit] in the earth, whether in a frying pan or a deep pan, whether first one attached the dough to the frying pan or the deep pan and then heated them with fire from below until the loaf was baked or one heated them first and then attached the dough. If, however, one made a dough to dry it in the sun alone or to cook it in a pot, it is exempt from challah, for [dough cooked] in the sun is not bread whether it was kneaded with water or other liquids. Similarly, roasted grain that was kneaded whether with water or honey and which is eaten without being baked is exempt, for the obligation of challah applies only to a dough that will ultimately be baked as bread for human consumption.

When a dough was first kneaded to make a dough to be cooked in the sun and then the person completed making it for a loaf of bread, or he began making it to bake bread and completed it to cook it in the sun and similarly, when roasted flour was kneaded to bake a loaf of bread, there is an obligation to separate challah.

When bread was baked to be used for kutach, the manner in which it is made indicates the intent. If it was made as cakes, there is an obligation to separate challah. If he made it in strips, it is exempt from challah.

What is the minimum measure of dough from which we are obligated to separate challah? An entire omer of flour, whether from one of the five species or from all five together, for they are all combined to reach the minimum measure. What is the measure of an omer? One fifth [of a kab] less than two kabbin. A kab is four lugim and a log is four revi'iot. A revi'it is the volume of a cube two fingerbreadths by two fingerbreadths by a height of two and seven tenths fingerbreadths. A fingerbreadth refers to the width of a thumb. Thus an omer is a measure that is ten fingerbreadths by ten fingerbreadths by a height of approximately 3 and one ninth fingerbreadths. Similarly, a cube with each side six and seven ninths fingerbreadths produces a measure of an omer. How much does this measure contain? The volume of 43 and 1/5 eggs. This is equivalent to the weight of 86 2/3 selaim of Egyptian wheat flour. This is equivalent to 520 zuz of Egyptian zuzim at present. A measure that comprises such a weight of wheat is used universally to measure for the separation of challah.

It is forbidden for a person to make his dough less than the minimum measure in order to free it from the obligation of challah. When a person separates challah from a dough that is smaller than the prescribed measure, his actions are of no consequence and the dough is ordinary dough as before. When a person made a dough that is less than the prescribed measure, baked it, and put the loaf in a basket, baked another loaf and put it in the basket, and [continued doing this] until a measure from which challah [must be separated] was collected in the basket, the basket joins them together [as a single entity, establishing an obligation for] challah. He must separate challah from the bread. This is derived [from the prooftext mentioned above]: "When you partake of the bread of the land." [The verse] teaches that one should separate [challah] from [bread] that is baked. An oven, [however,] does not join loaves together [to create an obligation to separate] challah.

If [small] loaves were joined together and a quantity equal to the measure of challah was gathered together, there is an obligation to separate challah. [This applies] even if they are not placed in a basket [together]. If one baked loaves a little bit at a time and gathered together the entire quantity on a board that does not have a cavity, there is a doubt regarding [the matter]. If [the obligation to separate] challah is of Rabbinic origin, one is not obligated to separate it until they are gathered in a container with a cavity.

When flour was not sifted, but instead kneaded together with its bran, since the entire measure of the flour comprises an omer, there is an obligation [to separate] challah. If, however, one removed the bran from the flour and then completed the [required] measure of dough by returning the bran to the flour, there is no obligation to separate challah.

When a baker makes a dough to become yeast and divide it up, there is an obligation [to separate] challah, for if it is not sold, he will use it as bread. If, however, one makes a dough to divide it while dough, it is exempt.

[The following law applies when] women give flour to a baker to make yeast. If none of them individually [gave enough flour to make a dough] that comprises the required measure - even though [the dough made from the flour which] they all [gave] does - it is exempt.

[The following laws apply when] there are two doughs that when combined comprise the measure that obligates the separation of challah, but neither comprises that measure alone should they touch each other and become attached to each other. If they belong to two individuals, they are exempt from challah even though they are of the same type of grain. [The rationale is that] we assume that the two people object [to the combination of their doughs]. If it is known that they would not object to the combination of their doughs, they are considered as one.

[Different rules apply if] the two belonged to one person. If they were from one type [of grain], they are combined and challah is obligated to be separated from them. If they are from two types, they are not combined. [The rationale is that] we assume that one person does not object [to the combination of his doughs]. If he objects [to their combination and endeavors] that one dough not touch the other or become mixed with it, they are not considered as one, even if they are of one type of grain.

What is meant by the statement that if they belonged to one person and were from the same type [of grain] they are combined? When a dough from wheat touches a dough from spelt, they are combined. If it touched [a dough from] another type of grain, they are not combined. Similarly, if a dough of barley touches a dough of spelt, oats, or rye, or doughs of spelt, oats, or rye touch each other, they can be combined.

A dough from grain from one year should not be combined with a dough from grain from the previous year even though they are of the same species. [This is a decree,] lest people say that terumah may be separated from new grain for old grain. A person should not separate [the challah] from the middle of the two. Instead, he should bring another dough - either from this year or the previous - and combine it with them to complete the required measure. When does the above apply? When one dough touches another. If, however, one mixes flour from the species of grain and makes a single dough from one of them, the five are combined to comprise the measure of dough required for challah, as we explained.

When there is a dough that is less than the required measure on one side and another dough less than the required measure on the other side, and a dough that is exempt from challah in the middle - e.g., a dough of rice, a dough of terumah [flour] or from terumah [flour] that was mixed with ordinary flour, or a dough from a gentile - [the doughs] are not combined even though they touch each other. [The rationale is that] an entity that is exempt from challah separates in the middle.

When, by contrast, there is a dough from which challah was separated between them, [the two outer doughs] can be combined, because originally, there was an obligation to separate challah from the dough in the center. Similarly, if a dough that was consecrated was in the center, they are combined, [because that dough] is fit to be redeemed [at which point,] there will be an obligation to separate challah from it. Similarly, if there was a dough of another type of grain, a dough belonging to another person, or a dough from a different year between them, the doughs on the sides are combined [to comprise an obligation to separate] challah.

There were two doughs, each one of them less than the minimum measure for challah. One separated challah from each of them. Afterwards, they touched each other and [the combined doughs] comprise the [required] measure. There is an obligation to separate challah [from the combined doughs], for the challot separated originally are of no consequence.

Two gentiles made a dough comprising the required measure [for challah] and divided it. Afterwards, they converted and after the conversion, each one added to his portion until it comprised the [required] measure. There is an obligation [to separate] challah. [The rationale is that] there was no time that it was of the size obligating [challah] while they were gentiles, because each was to receive less than the required measure.

If, however, two Jews made [a dough] in the above manner and then, they divided it and each one of them added to his portion until it comprised the required measure, it is exempt. [The rationale is that] there was a time when there would have been an obligation [to separate challah from the original dough] and they were exempt at that time, because the dough was made to be divided.

[Different rules apply when], by contrast, the dough was owned by a gentile and a Jew in partnership and they divided it. If, afterwards, the gentile converted and then added to his portion and the Jew added to his portion until each one of them completed the measure that requires the separation of challah, there is an obligation to separate challah from the dough of the Jew, but the dough of the gentile is exempt.

[The following laws apply when a person] takes yeast from a dough from which challah was not separated and places it in a dough from which challah was separated. He should bring a second dough that - together with this yeast - will comprise a measure that obligates the separation of challah and combine it with the dough from which challah was separated. He should then separate from the second dough the appropriate measure of challah for it and for the yeast. [In this manner,] he is separating [challah] from [dough] that is in the same place. If he does not have a second dough, the entire [first dough] is considered as tevel. He should separate challah for the entire amount. [The rationale is that] when tevel is mixed with its own type, even the slightest amount causes the mixture to become forbidden.

A dough from which challah has not been separated is like ordinary produce and not like challah with regard to the laws of ritual purity. As will be explained in the appropriate place, impurity of the second degree does not bring about impurity of the third degree with regard to ordinary produce. It is permitted to cause ordinary produce to contract ritual impurity in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore when there are two doughs, one that is ritually impure and one that is ritually pure, one may take [a portion of dough] equivalent to the measure of challah to be separated from both of them from a dough from which challah was not separated and place it in the center close to the pure dough. He should then extend a portion of the impure dough the size of an egg to the pure dough so that he will be able to separate challah from the dough in the same place.

A person may make a pure dough and refrain from separating challah from it, setting it - or a portion of it - aside to continuously separate challot from other doughs with it until the dough set aside becomes challah in its entirety, provided [the dough set aside] does not become spoiled to the point that it is no longer fit for human consumption. [This applies] even if the doughs became impure. Once the dough is no longer fit for human consumption, [challah] cannot be separated with it. When does the above apply? When there is a question whether or not challah has been separated from the doughs for which he is separating challah. [The rationale is that] challah of a doubtful status may be taken from the pure dough for the impure as an initial preference and the two need not be in the same place.

When a person separates challah from flour, it is not challah. [The flour given] the priest is like stolen property in his possession and there is an obligation [to separate] challah from a dough [made from] the remainder [of the flour]. If the flour set aside [mistakenly] as challah is an omer in measure and a dough was made from it, one must separate challah from it as [is necessary with regard to doughs made] from any ordinary flour.

When should challah be set aside? When one adds water and mixes the flour with the water, he should set aside [a portion as] challah from the first portion that is kneaded, as [indicated by Numbers 15:20:] "From the first of your dough." [The above applies] provided a measure of flour equal to an omer that has not become mixed with water does not remain in the kneading trough. If he stipulates: "This is challah for the dough, for the yeast, and for the flour that remains. When it all becomes one dough, the portion set aside will become sanctified as challah," it is permitted.

If the person left the dough [intact] until it was all kneaded and mixed together and separated [the challah] afterwards, [the delay] is of no consequence. If he does not separate challah while the mixture is a dough, but bakes the entire dough, he should separate [challah] from the loaf, as we explained.

When does the obligation [to separate] challah from dough take effect? When the wheat [flour] was rolled into a ball and [all of] the flour becomes mixed with it or when the barley [flour] was made into a single mass and formed one block. One may snack from the dough until the wheat [flour] was rolled into a ball or the barley [flour] was made into a single mass. The laws pertaining to wheat [flour] pertain to spelt [flour] and those pertaining to barley [flour] pertain to oat and rye [flour].

Once the wheat [flour] was rolled into a ball or the barley [flour] was made into a single mass, one who partakes of it before challah was separated is liable for death [at the hand of heaven], because it is tevel. Therefore, if there is a Scriptural obligation [to separate] challah from the dough, a person who partakes of it is liable for lashes, as is anyone who partakes of tevel. If the obligation is Rabbinic in origin, [a person who partakes of the dough] is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.

When a dough from ordinary flour becomes mixed with flour that is terumah before [all the flour] was rolled into a ball, it is exempt [from the obligation of challah]. When it becomes mixed with it after it was rolled into a ball, there is an obligation [to separate challah]. Similarly, if a person consecrates a dough or declares it ownerless before it was rolled into a ball and then redeemed it or took possession of it and rolled it into a ball - alternatively, he consecrated it or declared it ownerless after it was rolled into a ball - there is an obligation [to separate] challah.

If he consecrated it before he rolled it and it was rolled in the possession of the Temple treasury and afterwards, he redeemed it, it is exempt. For at the time the obligation would have taken effect, [the dough] was exempt.

Similarly, if a gentile gave [flour] to a Jew to make a dough for him and then gave him [the dough] as a present. If he gave it to him [as a present] before it was rolled into a ball, he is liable. [If he gave it to him] after it was rolled into a ball, it is exempt.

[The following laws apply when] a convert joins the Jewish faith. If he had a dough that was rolled into a ball before he converted, it is exempt. If it was rolled afterwards, there is an obligation [to separate challah]. If there is a doubt [concerning the matter], there is an obligation, [because eating bread from which challah was not separated] is a transgression punishable by death [at the hand of heaven]. If a non-priest [unknowingly] partook of this challah that was separated due to such a doubt or the like, he is not liable to add a fifth [when making restitution].

When a question arises concerning the ritual purity of a dough before it was rolled together as a ball, he should prepare [the dough] in a state of ritual impurity. For it is permitted to make ordinary produce impure in Eretz Yisrael. The challah should then be burnt. If, after a dough was rolled into a ball, a doubtful situation arose concerning its ritual purity which, were it to be ascertained that it was definitely impure, would convey ritual impurity of Scriptural origin, its [preparation] should be completed in a state of ritual purity. [The rationale is that with regard to] any circumstance where impurity would be imparted to ordinary produce were one certain that it transpired, our Sages decreed that if there is a doubt that it transpired, a dough upon which the obligation to separate challah already fell should not intentionally be made impure, for that obligation has already taken effect. Instead, the challah [separated] is a tentative state; it is not eaten, nor is it burnt.

As an initial preference, a person should not prepare his dough in a state of ritual impurity. Instead, he should be careful and endeavor to purify himself and his utensils so that he can separate challah in a state of ritual purity. If he is more than four mil from water [fit for an immersion], he should prepare [the dough] in a state of ritual impurity and separate impure challah.

A loaf to serve as challah should not be prepared in a state of ritual purity for a common person. A loaf of ordinary produce may, however, be made in ritual purity [for him]. What is implied? A chaver may mix the dough and separate an appropriate measure of challah from it. He then places [the challah] in a utensil made from dung, stone, or clay, which do not contract ritual impurity. When the common person comes, he should take both of them, the dough and the challah. We tell him: "Be careful not to touch the challah, lest it become tevel again." Why is this allowed? So that the person making the dough could earn his livelihood.

The wife of a chaver may sift and strain [flour] together with the wife of a common person. Once water has been mixed with the dough, however, she should not help her, because [the wife of the common person] makes her dough while ritually impure. Similarly, one should not knead or array dough with a baker who bakes his dough in a state of ritual impurity. [The rationale is that] one should not reinforce the hands of transgressors. One may, however, transport bread with him to a bakery.

When a person purchases bread from a baker who is a common person in Syria and [the baker] tells him: "I separated challah," [the purchaser] does not need to separate challah because of the doubt. Just as the entire Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael were not suspect [to ignore the separation of] the great terumah, so too, in Syria, they were not suspect [to ignore the separation of] challah.

When a person purchases [bread] from a baker in the Diaspora, he must separate challah because of the doubt involved. If, however, he purchases from a private person - and needless to say, if he enjoys his hospitality - he is not required to separate challah because of the doubt.

It is a positive commandment for anyone who slaughters a kosher domesticated animal to give a priest the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, as [Deuteronomy 18:50] states: "This is the judgment [due] the priests...." These are universally known as "presents." This mitzvah is practiced at all times, whether at the time the Temple is standing or not, whether in Eretz Yisrael or in the Diaspora, with regard to ordinary animals but not consecrated ones.

There is an obligation to separate the above-mentioned presents from all consecrated animals that had a permanent blemish before they were consecrated and were redeemed. If, by contrast, they had a temporary blemish before their consecration or they were consecrated when they were unblemished, but afterwards, they became blemished, and they were redeemed, they are exempt from these presents.

If there is an unresolved doubt whether an animal is a firstborn, there is certainly an obligation to give the presents [from it to the priest]. [The rationale is:] If it is a firstborn, it must be given to a priest in its entirety. If it is not a firstborn, the presents must be given to a priest. If a question arises with regard to the status of two animals and a priest took one because of the doubt, the second one is exempt from the presents. [The rationale is that] it is considered as an animal which a priest acquired and then gave to its owners, because of its blemish. If, however, there is an unresolved doubt whether an animal is the tithes of the herd, it is exempt in all situations. [The rationale is that] when one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him.

When an animal that was consecrated and then disqualified because of a blemish became mixed with other animals - even one with 100 - if one person owns all of them, they are all exempt [from the obligation of the presents]. [The rationale is that the status of] each one is doubtful and when one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him. If one person was slaughtering all the animals, only one [set of] presents is exempt.

We are required to separate presents only from a kosher domesticated animal, [as indicated by Deuteronomy, loc. cit., which] states: "If it be an ox or a sheep." If a hybrid is born from a sheep and a goat, there is an obligation for presents to be given. We separate all the presents from a ko'i even though its status is undetermined. When a male deer mates with a goat and it gives birth, there is an obligation [to give] half the presents [to a priest]. [This is derived from the above prooftext]: "If it be... a sheep," i.e., even if it is only part sheep. [When, by contrast,] a male goat mates with a deer, the offspring is exempt from the presents.

Whether a person slaughters an animal for consumption by non-Jews, by animals, by dogs, or for medical purposes, there is an obligation [to give] the presents.

There is an obligation [to separate the presents from] an animal belonging to partners, as [the above prooftext] states: "those who slaughter the animal."

When a person purchases an animal with the produce of the Sabbatical year, he is obligated to [give] presents [to a priest]. Priests and Levites are exempt from the presents, as [the above prooftext] states: "from the people." It is questionable whether the Levites are considered as part of "the people" or not. Therefore [the presents] are not taken from them. If, however, a priest took them, he need not return them.

When does the above apply? When one slaughters for his own sake. [Different laws apply to] a priest who is a butcher, who slaughters [animals] and sells them in the marketplace. We grant him two or three weeks. Afterwards, we expropriate the presents from him and grant them to other priests. If he established a butcher shop to sell meat, we do not wait at all. Instead, we expropriate the presents from him immediately. If he refrains from giving them, we place him under a ban of ostracism until he gives them.

A person who slaughters an animal for the sake of a priest or a gentile is exempt from [the obligation to give presents]. A person who enters into a partnership with a priest [in the ownership of an animal] must mark his portion, so that he will leave the presents in the portion of the priest. If he does not mark his portion, he is obligated [to give] these presents, because the fact that the priest is his partner is not a matter of public knowledge. Accordingly, if the priest was standing with him in the butcher store and dealing and negotiating with him, he is not required to mark [his portion]. When a person enters a partnership with a gentile [in the ownership of an animal], he need not mark his portion. [The rationale is that] as a rule, a gentile will speak excessively and inform everyone that he is [the Jew's] partner, even if [the Jew] is not present at the time of the sale.

[If, when negotiating a partnership agreement regarding the ownership of an animal,] a priest stipulates to [his partner, an Israelite,] that they are partners with the exception of the presents, the presents belong to the priest. Since the priest stipulated "with the exception of...," he left himself the portion of [the animal containing] the presents. Hence, they are his. If, however, the priest told the Israelite: "...on the condition that the presents are mine," the presents belong to the Israelite and he may give them to any priest he desires. Even though [the priest] stipulated that they were his, [the animal] is not exempt from [the obligation to give] the presents. For by saying "on the condition that...," he did not leave himself [the ownership of] the presents. Since he did not leave himself a share in their ownership, he did not acquire them through this stipulation.

If a priest was a partner in [the ownership of] the head, he is exempt from [giving] the jaw. If he is a partner in the front leg, he is exempt from the fore leg. If he is a partner in the digestive organs, he is exempt from the maw. If the priest told [the Israelite]: "The entire animal is mine, but the head is yours," he is obligated to give the jaw, for the portion that must be given belongs to the Israelite.

[The following laws apply when] a gentile converts and he is in the process of having an animal slaughtered. If it was slaughtered before he converted, he is exempt. If [it was slaughtered] after he converted, he is obligated. If there is a doubt concerning the matter, [we follow the principle]: When one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him.

It is permitted to partake [of the meat] of an animal from which the presents were not separated. [The situation] is not analogous to tevel [The rationale is that] the presents due to be given the priests are separate and distinct. It is forbidden for an Israelite to partake of the presents themselves without the permission of a priest. If he transgresses and partakes of them, damages them, or sells them, he is not liable to make financial restitution. [The rationale is that] this is money that has no known plaintiff. A person who purchases them - even though he is forbidden to do so - is permitted to partake of them, because when the presents to the priests are stolen, the theft effect a change in ownership.

If one tells a butcher: "Sell me the digestive organs of a cow," and there were presents among them, [the purchaser] should give them to a priest, but [the seller] need not decrease the price [accordingly]. If [the purchaser] bought [the organs] by weight, he should give them to the priest and deduct their value from the butcher's [due].

When a person sends meat to a friend and there were presents in [the parcel], the recipient need not be concerned that [the sender] transgressed and stole them. In a place where there are no priests, one should determine their financial value and partake of them, [so as not to cause] a priest a loss. He should then give the money to any priest he desires.

If a person wants to give the presents to only one priest, he may do so. If he wants to divide them [and give them to several], he should not give half the maw or half the foreleg to one [priest]. Instead, he should give the foreleg to one, the maw to another, and the jaw to two others. [This is inferred from Deuteronomy 18:4]: "And you shall give it to him," i.e., give him a portion that is a significant present. If [he is giving presents] from an ox, he may divide them into portions, provided each portion is a significant present.

What is meant by the foreleg? The right foreleg, The portion from the upper-joint until the ankle joint; two limbs, one connected with the other. The jaw refers to the jaw bones until the large ring of the protrusion of the gullet with the tongue between the bones. All of this is given to the priest.

[When giving the jaw and the foreleg to the priest,] we do not pour boiling water on the hide [to remove the hair], nor do we skin it. Instead, we give it to [the priest] with its skin and wool. [We give a priest] the maw with the fat upon it and the fat within it. The priests have already accepted the custom of leaving the fat of the maw for the owner.

A women of the priestly family may partake of the presents even if she is married to an Israelite, because they are not consecrated. Moreover, her husband may partake of the presents for her sake. A challalah, by contrast, may not partake of the presents, because challalim are not in the category of priests. If a priest desires to sell the presents, to give them as gifts, even to a gentile, or to feed them to the dogs, he may, for they are not consecrated at all.

[The following rules apply when there is] a priest whose friends [continually] give him presents. If he desires to transfer ownership of them to a friend who is an Israelite, he may, even though they did not enter [the priest's] domain. Thus [the priest's] friends may slaughter [their animals] and give the presents to the Israelite who acquired them. [This applies] provided the Israelite is in difficult straits and does not have the means to buy meat and the priest who transfers the meat to him is his friend. If, however, the priest is the Israelite's attendant or his hired worker or employee, he may not transfer ownership [of the presents] until they enter his domain. [This is a safeguard,] lest he compel him to do so.

A priest should not grab the presents, nor should he even request them verbally. Instead, if he is given them in a respectful manner, he may take them. When there are many priests at the slaughter house, the modest ones withdraw and the gluttons take them. [Even though] a priest is modest, [if] it is not known that he is a priest, he should take [the presents] to let it be known to everyone that he is a priest. The priests should only eat the presents as they are roasted, with mustard on them, for [Numbers 18:8] states [that the gifts to the priests were given them]: "for distinction." Hence, [they should] be eaten in a manner befitting a king.

It is a positive commandment to give a priest the first shearings [of an animal], as [Deuteronomy 18:4] states: 'Give him the first shearings of your flock.' Levites are considered like Israelites with regard to this mitzvah. There is no minimum measure for these shearings according to Scriptural law. According to Rabbinical Law, one should not give less than a sixtieth. It applies only in Eretz [Yisrael], whether the Temple is standing or not like the first of the grain. It applies to ordinary animals, but not to consecrated ones.

What is implied? A person consecrated animals for the Temple treasury and then sheared them. Is he obligated to redeem them and give [the first shearings] to the priests? Or if one consecrated an animal with the exception of its shearings, is he obligated in the first shearings? It is written [ibid.]: "your sheep,' [i.e., the obligation applies only to "your sheep.'

There is an obligation [to give a priest] the first shearing of any consecrated animals that possessed a permanent blemish before they were consecrated and were [then] redeemed. If, however, they were consecrated before they were blemished or it had a temporary blemish before it was consecrated, and afterwards, it received a permanent blemish and it was redeemed, it is exempt from the first shearing.

The only animals whose first shearings we are obligated [to give a priest] are sheep, both male and female, for their wool is fit [to make] garments. If their wool was stiff and not fit for [making] garments, they are exempt from the first shearings, for this present is given to the priest for the sole purpose of providing him with garments.

Since the Holy One, blessed be He, granted [a priest] the terumot which provide him with bread and wine and He granted him the presents of meat and the sacrificial meat of the Temple for meat, He provided them with the first shearings for their garments and [restitution for property] stolen from a [childless] convert, devotion offerings, ancestral fields [that were consecrated and not redeemed], and the redemption of the firstborn, for their expenses and for their other needs. [These are granted to the priests,] because they are not granted an ancestral portion of the land, nor a share in the spoils of war.

If [a sheep's] wool was [naturally] red, black, or brown, there is an obligation [to give the priest] the first shearings. If, however, the wool was shorn and dyed, before it was given [to a priest], he is exempt from the first shearings. If one bleached it before he gave it [to the priests], he is obligated to set [the wool] aside after he bleaches it. When a person pulls out the wool of ewes by hand instead of shearing it, he is obligated in the first shearings.

There is an obligation [to separate] the first shearings from hybrids [of sheep], a ko'i, and a sheep that is mortally ill. If, however, one shears a dead sheep, he is exempt.

When a person sets aside the first shearings and they are lost, he is responsible to make restitution until he gives them to the priest. When a person says: 'Let all of my shearings be considered as the first shearings,' his words are of consequence.

A person who purchases the shearings of a gentile's sheep after the gentile has shorn them is exempt from the first shearings. When he purchases [the gentile's] sheep for their shearing, he is obligated even though the wool grew in the gentile's domain and the sheep are returned to the gentile after the shearing. Since the shearer is Jewish and the shearings belong to him, he is obligated. For the obligation takes effect only at the time of shearing.

[The following laws apply when] a person purchases the shearings of a fellow Jew. If the seller left a portion of his sheep to shear, the seller is obligated to separate from [the shearing of] the remainder [the appropriate amount] for the entire [flock. This applies] even if the seller has not begun to shear [his sheep. The rationale is that we operate under] the assumption that a person will not sell the presents to be given the priests. If [the seller] did not leave any [sheep to shear], the purchaser is obligated to separate [the first shearings].

[A different rule applies it] there are two types of shearings, e.g., white wool and brown wool, or wool from males and wool from females, and one sold one and retained possession of the other. Both [the purchaser and the seller] should give the first shearings, [the purchaser] on what he purchased and the seller on what he retained.

When a convert converts and he possesses sheep that are being shorn and it is not known whether they were shorn before he converted or after he converted, he is exempt. [The rationale is when] one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him.

How many sheep must there be for [a flock] to be obligated for the first shearings? No less than five, provided their shearings is not less than the weight of 60 sela and the shearings of each one will not be less than the weight of 12 sela. If the shearings of one of them is less than the weight of twelve sela, [the flock] is exempt from the first shearing, even if [the wool of] the five of them weighs 60 selaim or more.

Partners are obligated in [the mitzvah of] the first shearings, provided each one's share is equal to the minimum measure [mentioned above]. It: however, there are only five sheep belonging to two partners, they are exempt.

The mitzvah is to set aside the first shearing at the outset. If, however, one set it aside in the middle or at the end, he fulfilled his obligation. When a person owns five sheep, but [did not shear them together, i.e.,] he had one shorn alone and sold its wool, and then had another shorn alone and sold its wool, and then a third, etc., all of these are combined [to obligate him in the mitzvah of] the first shearing, even if this takes place over the course of several years. He may separate from the new shearings for the old shearings and from [the shearings of] one type of sheep for another. If, however, he had one sheep, he sheared it and set aside its shearings, purchased a second sheep and set aside its shearings, [and continued doing so until he sheared five sheep], their shearings are not combined.

When a person has several shearings from the first shearings that he desired to divide among the priests, he should not give any priest less than the weight of five selaim of white wool, enough to make a small garment. The intent is not that he should whiten it and give it to them. Instead, he should give each of them [at least enough] unrefined wool to produce five selaim or more of wool after it has been whitened. [This is derived from Deuteronomy 18:14:] 'Give it to him,' i.e., give him a significant present.

The first shearings are ordinary property in every regard. Therefore, I maintain that they may be given to a woman of the priestly family even if she is married to an Israelite like the presents of meat. It appears to me that they are governed by the same laws.

It is a positive commandment for every Jewish man to redeem his son who is the firstborn of his Jewish mother, as [Exodus 34:19] states: "All first issues of the womb are mine" and [Numbers 18:15] states: "And you shall surely redeem a firstborn man."

A woman is not obligated to redeem her son, for one who is obligated to redeem himself is obligated to redeem his son. If the father transgressed and did not redeem his son, when he comes of age, he is obligated to redeem himself.

If it is necessary to redeem both the person himself and his son, he should redeem himself first and then his son. If he only has enough [money] for one redemption, he should redeem himself.

If [a father] had to redeem his son and the time arrived for him to make a festive pilgrimage [to Jerusalem] and he does not have the resources for both, he should redeem his son and then make the pilgrimage. [This is alluded to in Exodus 34:20:] which states: "You shall redeem all your firstborn sons" and afterwards [continues]: "Do not behold My countenance empty-handed."

A person who redeems his son should recite the blessing: "[Blessed are You...] who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the redemption of a son." Afterwards, he recites the blessing Shehechiyanu and then gives [the money for] the redemption to the priest. If [a son] redeems himself, he should recite the blessing: "[Blessed... who commanded us] to redeem the firstborn" and he should recite the blessing Shehechiyanu.

This mitzvah is practiced in every place and at all times. For how much should the son be redeemed? Five selaim, as [Numbers 18:16] states: "And those to be redeemed: from one month you shall redeem [according to the valuation of five silver shekalim]." [The redemption may be paid] in silver or in articles worth silver, i.e., movable property that is of financial worth like the shekalim are. Therefore one may not redeem [a firstborn] with landed property or with servants. Nor may promissory notes [be used], because they are not of inherent worth. If one redeemed a firstborn with these, he is not redeemed.

When a father writes to a priest that he is obligated to give him five selaim, the obligation takes effect, but the son is not redeemed. If he gives him a utensil that is not worth five selaim in the market, but the priest accepts it as if he was given five selaim, the son is redeemed. If he divides the five selaim among ten priests, whether at once or one after the other, he fulfils his obligation.

If the priest desires to return [what was given for] the redemption to [the father], he may. He should not, however, give it to him with the intent that he return it. If he did so, and [the priest] returned it, his son is not redeemed. [Instead,] he must give it to him with the resolution that he is giving him a present without any reservations. Afterwards, if the priest desires to return it, he may return it. Similarly, if he gives it to him as a present with the stipulation that it be returned, his son is redeemed.

The priests and the Levites are exempt from the redemption of their firstborn, as evident from a logical deduction: If they served as the redemption of the Israelites firstborn in the desert, certainly, they themselves are exempt.

An Israelite who is born to a woman of the priestly or Levite family is exempt, for this matter is not dependent on the father, but rather on the mother, as [indicated by the phrase]: "the first issue of the womb in Israel."

When a woman of the Levite family was impregnated by a gentile, her son is exempt. If, however, a woman of the priestly family was impregnated by a gentile, her son is obligated, for his mother was disqualified from the priestly family because of relations with the gentile.

When a priest fathers a son who is a challal and the father dies within 30 days [of the son's birth], the son is obligated to redeem himself, because the father did not acquire the redemption. If [the father] dies after 30 days [have passed], the son is not obligated to redeem himself, because the father acquired the redemption.

If a maidservant was freed - or a gentile woman converted - while she was pregnant and then she gave birth, since he was born in holiness, [the child] is obligated [to redeem himself] even though he was not conceived in holiness, as [indicated by] the phrase: "the first issue of the womb in Israel." For this child is the first issue of a womb in Israel. If it is not known whether the woman gave birth before she converted or afterwards, [we follow the principle:] When one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him.

When a gentile woman or a maidservant gave birth and then converted or was freed and then gave birth again, [the second child] is exempt, as [indicated by] the phrase "the first issue of the womb," and this is not [the woman's] first issue of the womb. Similar concepts apply when a son is born after a nefal. Whenever the mother is ritually impure due to birth because of a nefal, a son born afterwards is not considered the first issue of the womb. Whenever a nefal does not cause the mother to be ritually impure due to birth, e.g., a woman who miscarries and the issue resembles a fish or a grasshopper, a woman who miscarries on the fortieth day [after conception], or the like, a son born afterwards is [under obligation] to the priesthood and must be redeemed.

When a fetus in a woman's womb was cut up and removed limb by limb, a son born afterwards is not considered to be "the first issue of her womb." When the head of a fetus that was carried for eight months emerged alive and then was withdrawn back to the womb where it died - or the head of a stillborn fetus that was carried for nine moths emerged and then was withdrawn - and afterwards the [twin] brother [of the fetus] emerged as [a viable] birth, the viable birth is not considered the first issue of the womb, for [all subsequent births] became exempt with the [emergence of] the head of the first [fetus]. As soon as its forehead emerged, it exempted those born afterwards.

When a baby is born by Caesarian section, both it and the next birth are exempt: the first because it did not emerge from the womb, and the second, because it was preceded by another birth.

When does the obligation for redemption take effect? When the baby completes 30 days of life, as [Numbers 18:16] states: "And those to be redeemed should be redeemed from the age of a month." If the son died within the thirty days - even on the thirtieth day - or it became mortally ill, there is no obligation [to pay the priest] five selaim. If he gave the priest [the money for] the redemption beforehand, he should return it. If the baby died after its thirtieth day, the father is obligated to redeem him. If he did not give [the money to the priest], he should.

[The following rules apply when] one redeems his son within 30 days of his birth: If he tells [the priest]: "I am redeeming him at this time," his son is not redeemed. If he tells him that [the gift should take effect] after 30 days, his son is redeemed even if the coins no longer exist after 30 days.

If there is a doubt whether a son is obligated to be redeemed or not, he is exempt. [The rationale is that when] one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him. If a father dies within 30 days [of his son's birth], we operate under the assumption that the son was not redeemed unless he brings proof from his father that he redeemed him before he died. If the father died after 30 days [following the son's birth], we operate under the assumption that he was redeemed unless he informed us that he was not redeemed.

When a person's wife has never given birth and she gives birth to a male and a female, but it is not known which emerged first, there is no obligation to give the priest anything. If she gave birth to two males, even if it is not known which is the firstborn, [the father] must give five selaim to the priest. If one of them dies within 30 days, [the father] is exempt, [based on the principle, when] one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him]. If the father died - whether he died within 30 days of the birth of his sons or afterwards, whether the sons divided his estate or not - five selaim should be given from the estate to the priest, because an obligation was already established upon the estate.

[The following rules apply when a man has] two wives who have not yet given birth and they give birth to two sons and [the father] gives ten selaim to the priest [within 30 days of their birth]. If one dies within 30 days and he had given [the ten selaim] to one priest, he should return five selaim to him. If he gave the money to two priests, he cannot expropriate the money from them, since he did not specify which son he is redeeming and each can tell him: "Have my colleague refund you."

When a man has two wives who have not given birth yet and they give birth to a male and a female or two males and a female [and it is not known which mother gave birth to which child and which is the order of the children's births], he should give five selaim to a priest. [The rationale is that] it is impossible that among them there will not be one male who is the first issue of the womb.

[In the above situation, if the women] give birth to two females and a male or two males and two females and it is not known which was born first, the priest is not entitled to anything. For [with regard to each mother], it is possible to say a female was born first and then a male.

[When a man has] two wives, one who has already given birth and one who has not yet given birth, and they give birth to two sons who become mixed together, he must give five selaim to a priest. If one of the sons dies within thirty days, the father is exempt. If the father died, five selaim should be paid from his estate.

[In the above situation, if the two wives] gave birth to a male and a female or two males and a female, the priest is not entitled to anything. For it is possible to say that the woman who did not give birth yet gave birth to a female first and then a male and the one who had given birth already gave birth to a male.

When there are two men who have wives who had not yet given birth and they both gave birth to males and they became mixed together, each father must give five selaim. [The following rules apply if] they both gave [that amount] within thirty days and then one of the sons died within that time. If they gave the money to two priests, they cannot expropriate it from them. If they both gave it to the same priest, one should write a document giving power of attorney to the other and then the one with power of attorney should expropriate five selaim from the priest.

[In the above situation, if the women] gave birth to a male and a female and they became mixed together, the fathers are exempt and the son is obligated to redeem himself. Similar [laws apply when] a woman who has not given birth previously does not wait after [being divorced from] her [first] husband three months [before marrying] and gives birth [to a child, whose lineage is doubtful]. It is not known whether he is the first [husband's] son having been born after nine months or the last husband's son, having been born after seven. Both fathers are exempt and the son is obligated to redeem himself.

[In the above situation, if the women] gave birth to two females and a male or two females and two males, the priest is not entitled to anything.

[The following laws apply when] there are two wives of two men and one gave birth previously and one did not [and they gave birth and the infants became mixed together]. If they gave birth to two males, the father whose wife had not given birth previously must give five selaim to a priest. If they gave birth to a male and a female, the priest does not receive anything.

[In the above situation, if the women] gave birth to two males and a female, the man whose wife had not given birth previously should give five selaim. The rationale is that his exemption implies a compounded doubt. For if his wife gave birth to a male only, he is obligated. And if she gave birth to a male and a female, he is obligated unless she gave birth to the female first. Since the probability of this is distant, he should give the money for the redemption.

It is a positive commandment for every Jewish man to redeem the first [male] issue of a donkey with a seh. If he does not desire to redeem it, it is a mitzvah for him to behead it, as [Exodus 13:13] states: "The first issue of a donkey you shall redeem with a seh. If you do not redeem it, you shall decapitate it." These two mitzvot apply in all places and at all times. The mitzvah of redemption takes precedence over the mitzvah of beheading [the donkey].

The seh with which it is redeemed is given to the priest, as [Numbers 18:15] states: "All first issues of the womb... and the firstborn of an impure animal you shall redeem."

The "impure animal" mentioned in the verse refers only to donkeys.

It is forbidden to benefit from the first issue of a donkey until it is redeemed. If it is sold before it is redeemed, the money received for it is forbidden. If it died before it was redeemed or it was decapitated, it should be buried, because it is forbidden to benefit from it even after its decapitation, since it was not redeemed. Therefore if he did not redeem it, but instead gave the first issue of the donkey itself to the priest, it is forbidden for the priest to benefit from it until he redeems it with a seh and takes the seh for himself or he decapitates it and buries it. The priests are suspect regarding this matter. Hence, it is forbidden for an Israelite to give the first issue of a donkey to a priest unless the priest redeems it in his presence.

When a person set aside [a seh] for the redemption of a donkey and it died before he gave it to the priest, he is not liable to replace it. Instead, he should give the corpse to the priest to benefit from. If the first issue of the donkey dies after it was redeemed, he should give the seh to the priest. It is permitted to benefit from [the donkey's corpse,] because it has been redeemed.

From when is he obligated to redeem [a firstling donkey]? From the time it was born until it reaches the age of 30 days. After 30 days, if he desires to decapitate it, he may [still do so]. If he desires to redeem it, he may. All that was involved was a delay in fulfilling the mitzvah.

If he does not desire to redeem [the firstling donkey], he should decapitate it with a butcher's hatchet from behind, as [Exodus 13:13] states: "If you do not redeem it, you should decapitate it." One may not kill it with a staff, a reed, an axe, or a saw, only with a hatchet. One may not place it in a room and lock the door until it dies, for [the verse] states: "And you shall decapitate it."

We may not redeem [a firstling donkey] with a calf, a wild beast, a slaughtered seh, nor an animal that is deathly ill, nor with a hybrid, nor with a ko'i, as [ibid.] states: "Redeem it with a seh." [The term] seh refers to a sheep or a goat that is alive.

One should not redeem [a firstling donkey] with a seh that resembles another species. If one redeems it in that manner, the redemption is effective. One may use a ben pekua for the redemption, but not a consecrated animal that was disqualified [and redeemed], for [Deuteronomy 15:22] equates such animals with "the deer and the hart." Just as a deer and a hart may not be used for this redemption, so too, a consecrated animal that was disqualified may not be used.

One may redeem [a firstling donkey] with a seh, whether a male or female, whether blemished or unblemished, whether small or large.

When a seh was purchased with money that came from the sale of produce of the Sabbatical year, it should not be used to redeem a donkey that is definitely a firstling. It may, however, be used to redeem a donkey whose firstling status is questionable. If [the owner of a firstling donkey] does not own a seh to redeem it, he may redeem it for its value, paying its worth to a priest. The Torah did not mention a seh to be stringent with him, but rather to be lenient with him, i.e., if he possessed a firstling donkey worth ten selaim, he could redeem it with a seh that is worth a dinar. [The rationale is that the redemption of the firstling donkey] should not be considered more stringent than [the redemption of] consecrated property which may be redeemed with its monetary value.

When does the above apply? When the value of the firstling donkey was three zuzim or more. If, however, its worth was less than three zuzim, it may be redeemed only with a seh or with three zuzim. A generous person should not give less than a sela, a parsimonious person should give half a sela and an average person, three zuzim.

When a person redeems a firstling donkey belonging to a colleague, the redemption is effective, but the donkey belongs to its owner.

Priests and Levites are exempt from the redemption of a firstling donkey, as [Numbers 18:15] states: "The firstborn of man and the firstborn of an impure animal you shall redeem." All of those who are obligated to redeem a firstborn human are obligated to redeem the firstborn of an impure animal. Those who are exempt from redeeming a firstborn human are exempt from redeeming the firstborn of an impure animal.

When a person purchases the fetus of a donkey belonging to a gentile or sells the fetus of his donkey to a gentile - although he is not allowed to do so - he is exempt from [redeeming] the firstborn. We do not penalize him for such an act. If the gentile was a partner in the mother or the firstborn - even if he only owned a thousandth share - the animal is exempt. Should [the gentile own] only one limb or organ of the fetus or the mother - e.g., its forefoot or its hindfoot, even its ear, any limb or organ that if cut off would cause the animal to be disqualified as blemished - it is exempt from [the obligations of] a firstborn. If, however, the portion belonging to the gentile would be cut off, the animal would not be considered as blemished for the altar, he is obligated. Similarly, one who receives a donkey from a gentile to care for on the condition that they divide the offspring or a gentile received [a donkey] from a Jew on that condition, they are exempt from [the obligations of] the firstborn, as [indicated by Exodus 13:2]: "The first issue of the womb within the children of Israel, in humans and in animals." [Implied is that] it must entirely belong to an Israelite.

When a convert converts and it is not known whether his donkey gave birth before he converted or afterwards, he is obligated to decapitate it or redeem it. If he redeems it with a seh, the seh belongs to the convert, [because we follow the principle]: When a person desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him.

When a gentile separates a firstling donkey, he should be informed that he is not obligated [to redeem it]. It is permitted for him to use its shearings and to work with it.

When a cow gives birth to an offspring resembling a donkey or a donkey gives birth to an offspring resembling a horse, it is exempt. [This is derived as follows. Twice the Torah states:] "The first issue of a donkey you shall redeem with a seh and the first issue of a donkey...." By mentioning "the first issue of a donkey" twice, [the Torah] indicates that both the mother and the offspring must [resemble] donkeys. If such an offspring has some of the identifying marks of a donkey, there is an obligation to redeem it.

When a donkey had not given birth before and it gives birth to two males, [the owner] should give a lamb to a priest. If it gives birth to a male and a female [and it is not known which was born first], a lamb should be set aside to remove its holiness so that it will be permitted to benefit from it, for perhaps the male was born first. The lamb that is set aside belongs to the owner and not to the priest. [We follow the principle]: When a person desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him.

When two donkeys that have not given birth yet give birth to two males, [the owner] should give two lambs to a priest. [If they give birth to] a male and a female or two males and a female, he should give one lamb to the priest.

[If these donkeys] gave birth to two females and a male or [even] two males and two females, the priest does not receive anything. Moreover, [the owner] need not [even] set aside a lamb that he can keep for himself. [The rationale is that] there are many doubts involved: Maybe one gave birth to a male and the other gave birth to two females. Or perhaps one gave birth to a female and the other to a male and then a female or a female and afterwards a male. Similarly, there are many doubts when two males and two females were born. If there were two donkeys - one had given birth previously and one had not - and they gave birth to two males and they became intermingled, [the owner] should give one lamb to the priest. If they gave birth to a male and a female, he should separate a lamb for himself and he need not give it to the priest, because its status is doubtful. [Hence, we follow the principle]: When a person desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him.

Similarly, when a person purchases a donkey from a gentile and it gives birth to a male, but it is not known whether it gave birth previously or not, he should redeem it with a seh - which he may keep - because its status is doubtful.

When a person possesses ten lambs - each of them having been separated because of a first issue of a donkey of a doubtful status - they are considered as ordinary property in every context. They should be tithed like other animals. One of them should be separated as the tithes and the others remain his property, as they were previously.

When an Israelite possesses at home ten donkeys whose status as firstlings is definite which he inherited from his maternal grandfather who was a priest who in turn inherited them from his maternal grandfather who was an Israelite, he should separate ten se'in for them. They, however, [may be kept] as his own and, hence, he is obligated to tithe them.