Firstlings

It is a positive commandment to set aside all the male first issues of the womb, whether among humans, kosher animals, and donkeys. This applies whether the animals are healthy or treifot. Thus Exodus 13:2 states: "Consecrate unto Me all firstborn, the first issue of the womb among the children of Israel, in humans and in animals." All of the above are given to the priests."

Firstborn humans and firstborn donkeys are redeemed and the redemption is given to the priests. A firstborn kosher animal should be slaughtered in the Temple like other sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. Its blood is cast on the altar and its fats and organs are burnt on the altar's pyre, as explained in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot. The remainder of the meat is eaten by the priests, as Numbers 18:15-18 states: "You shall surely redeem firstborn humans and you shall redeem firstborn non-kosher animals, but firstborn oxen... you shall not redeem. They are holy.... Their flesh will be for you."

When a firstborn kosher animal is blemished - whether it was born blemished or contracted a blemish after being born unblemished - it should be given to a priest. If he desires, he may eat it anywhere, or sell it or feed to whoever he desires, even a gentile, because it is ordinary property, as Deuteronomy 15:21-22 states: "If it has a blemish - lameness or blindness... the pure and the impure shall partake of it, like a deer or a hart." It is the priest's private property.

It is a mitzvah to sanctify a firstborn kosher animal and say: "Behold, this is holy," as Deuteronomy 15:19 states: "Every firstborn shall you sanctify unto G-d your Lord." Even if the owner did not sanctify it, it is sanctified as a matter of course. It is sanctified upon its emergence from the womb.

The mitzvah of the firstborn kosher animal is observed in Eretz Yisrael and in the Diaspora. Firstborn animals from the Diaspora should not be brought to Eretz Yisrael. This is derived from ibid. 14:23: "And you shall eat before G-d your Lord... the tithes of your grain, your wine, your oil, the firstborn of your herds and your sheep." Implied is that from the place where you bring "the tithes of your grain," you should bring firstborn cattle and sheep. From where you do not bring "the tithes of your grain," you should not bring firstborn cattle and sheep. Instead, those firstborn animals are like ordinary property and should be eaten after they become blemished. If one brings firstborn animals from the Diaspora to Jerusalem, they should not be accepted, nor should they be sacrificed. Instead, they should be eaten after they become blemished.

This mitzvah is observed whether the Temple is standing or not, like the tithes of grain. It does not apply to the offspring of consecrated animals - whether consecrated to be offered on the altar or consecrated for the Temple treasury - while they remain consecrated before they are redeemed.

Everyone is obligated in the mitzvah of setting aside a firstborn issue of a kosher animal: priests, Levites, and Israelites. Even though a firstborn issue is given to a priest, if a firstborn issue is born to a priest, he must offer its blood and fats and organs, as stated. And he must eat the remainder of the meat according to the laws pertaining to a firstborn, as Deuteronomy 15:19 states: "Every firstborn that is born in your herds and your cattle, you shall sanctify." The priests and the Levites are, however, exempt with regard to the mitzvot applying to the firstborn of humans and the firstborn of non-kosher animals, as we explained in Hilchot Matanot Kehunah.

A firstborn animal should be eaten within the first year of its life, whether it is unblemished or blemished, as ibid.:20-22 states: "Eat it before G-d your Lord, year after year.... If it has a blemish,... eat it in your gates." From when is the year calculated? If it is unblemished, it should be calculated from the eighth day of its life, for then it is fit to be offered as a sacrifice. If it was born blemished, the year should be calculated from the day of its birth, because it could be eaten on that day, provided it was born after a full-term pregnancy. If, however, it is not known whether it was born after a full-term pregnancy, the year should be calculated from the eighth day.

If a firstborn animal contracts a blemish in the midst of its year, it is permitted to keep it for twelve months. If it contracts a blemish at the end of its year, it is permitted to keep it for thirty days from the day it contracted the blemish, even though this delays eating it after its year. What is implied? For example, it contracted a blemish on the fifteenth day before the end of its year, it is granted another fifteen days after its year. If it contracted a blemish after its year, he may not keep it more than 30 days. Afterwards, it must be eaten.

In the present age, a firstborn animal should be left until it contracts a blemish and then eaten.

If a blemish did not appear so that it could be shown to a sage, one may keep the animal for two or three years. Should a blemish appear so that it could be shown to a sage, if the blemish is contracted within a year, it is permitted to be kept for an entire twelve month period. If it contracts a blemish after its first year, one may maintain it for thirty days.

The year of a firstborn animal is a full lunar year, twelve months from day to day. If it was a leap year, it benefits from the addition and it is granted thirteen months. If two lambs were born to a person, one on the fifteenth of the first Adar and one on the first day of the second Adar, when the first day of Adar in the following year arrives, the second lamb is considered to have its year completed. The one born in the middle of the first Adar, by contrast, is not considered to have its year completed until the middle of the Adar in the following year. Since it was born in the extra month, it is counted for it.

If a person transgressed and kept a firstborn animal for more than a year, although he violates a negative commandment, it is not disqualified from being brought as an offering if it is unblemished. If it is blemished, it may be slaughtered anywhere as evident from the prooftext that states: "the tithes of your grain, your wine, your oil, the firstborn of your herds and your sheep." An association is made between the firstborn animal and the tithes. Just as the tithes are not disqualified from one year to the next, so too, a firstborn animal is not disqualified from one year to the next.41

A firstborn animal should not be given to a priest directly after it was born, for this is not respectful to the priest. Instead, the owner of the animal should care for it until it matures slightly. Then he should give it to the priest. For how long is an Israelite obligated to care for a firstborn animal? For a small animal, for 30 days. For a large animal, 50 days. If a priest tells him: "Give it to me in the midst of this time and I will tend to it myself," he is not allowed to give it to him, for this is like a priest helping in order to receive his presents. We already explained in Hilchot Terumotthat priests who assist in the granaries, the butcher shops, and among the shepherds should not be given their presents as wages.

If the firstborn animal was blemished and a priest told the owner in the interval mentioned above: "Give it to me so that I can partake of it now," or if it was unblemished and he told him: "Give it to me in this interval so that I can offer it now," he may give it to him. It appears to me that a person may give a firstborn animal to any priest that he desires.

When a priest eats an olive-sized portion of an unblemished firstborn animal outside of Jerusalem, he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as Deuteronomy 12:17 states: "You may not eat the tithes of your grain, your wine, your oil, the firstborn of your herds and your sheep... in your gates." Similarly, a non-priest who partakes of an olive-sized portion of a firstborn animal whether before its blood was poured on the altar or afterwards is liable for lashes. According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that this admonition applies also to a non-priest who partakes of a firstborn, whether before its blood was poured on the altar or afterwards.

A firstborn kosher animal should not be redeemed, as Numbers 18:17 states: "But the firstborn of an ox, the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat should not be redeemed. Similarly, it should not be sold if it is unblemished. The rationale is that since the animal is intended as a sacrifice, the priest does not have the right to sell it. In the present age, when there is no Temple, since the firstborn is intended to be eaten, it is permitted to sell it, even though it is presently unblemished. It may be sold either to a priest or to an Israelite.

A priest may sell a blemished firstborn animal, in every age, whether the Temple is standing, whether it is not standing, whether it is alive, whether it has been slaughtered. When one sells a blemished firstborn, he should sell it at home, but not in the market-place, as we explained in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach. The meat of an unblemished firstborn animal, by contrast, should not be sold, because it is consecrated meat. Priests who are partners in the ownership of a firstborn animal are permitted to weigh one portion against another.

When a person skins a blemished firstborn animal, he is permitted to skin it in any manner he desires. If he desires to employ the technique called riggul, he may. The same applies to other consecrated animals that were disqualified. If he desired to skin it from the foot up, he may skin it in that manner.

If any of the permanent blemishes which disqualify consecrated animals and require them to be redeemed is contracted by a firstborn animal, it may be slaughtered for this reason in any place. We have already explained those blemishes in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach. Those that are appropriate to apply to a male animal number 67.

All of the conditions mentioned there which cause a sacrifice to be considered as less than desirable and hence, due to them, a consecrated animal is not offered, but also is not redeemed cause a firstborn not to be slaughtered due to them, nor offered. Instead, the animal remains until it contracts a permanent blemish. Similarly, if a firstborn contracts a temporary blemish, it should not be slaughtered in any place, nor should it be offered. Instead, it should pasture until it contracts a permanent blemish and is slaughtered because of it.

Similarly, if a transgression was performed with it or it killed a human according to the testimony of only one witness or the owner, it was set aside to be worshiped as a false deity or it was worshiped, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish, as explained in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach.

Neither an animal born through Cesarean section, nor one born afterwards are considered as firstborn animals. The first is not, because it is not the first issue of the womb. And the second is not, because the first preceded it. Even if a female was born through Cesarean section and a male later emerged from the womb, it is not a firstborn.

When a firstborn animal is an androgynus, it does not have any sacred quality associated with it. It is like a female, concerning which the priest has no claim at all. One may perform labor with it and shear it like other ordinary animals. When an animal is born as a tumtum, it is considered as a firstborn of doubtful status. It may be eaten by its owner after it contracts a blemish. This applies whether it urinates from a place that appears to indicate that it is male or it urinates from a place that appears to indicate that it is female.

A sheep that gave birth to offspring similar to a goat, or a goat that gave birth to offspring similar to a sheep, it is exempt from firstborn laws, as it says (Numbers 18, 17): "Just the firstborn of an ox", only when it is an ox and its eldest son is an ox. And if it had some signs of its mother it is a firstborn and it is permanently blemished for there is no blemish greater than change of its species. Even a cow that gave birth to offspring similar to a donkey, and it has some signs of a cow, it is a firstborn for the priest because the laws of firstborn apply to donkeys. But if it gave birth to [offspring similar to] a horse or a camel, even if it has some signs of a cow, it is a doubtful firstborn and therefore may be eaten by the owners. And if the priest seized it, we don't take it from him [the priest].

When a person imparts a blemish to a firstborn animal, since he performed a transgression, he is penalized. License is not granted to slaughter the firstborn because of this blemish until it contracts another blemish on its own accord. If, however, this transgressor dies, his son may slaughter the animal because of the blemish inflicted by his father, for his son was not penalized after him.

If one indirectly caused a firstborn to contract a physical blemish, e.g., one placed a fig on its ear, leaving it there until a dog came and took it and cut off its ear, he caused it to pass through jagged iron and pieces of glass so that its forefoot would be cut off and it was cut off, or he told a gentile to blemish it, the animal should not be slaughtered because of this blemish. This is the general principle: Whenever a blemish was brought about with a person's knowledge, it is forbidden for him to slaughter it because of this blemish. If it was brought about without his knowledge, it is permitted for him to slaughter it because of this blemish.

If one said: "If this firstborn animal would contract a blemish, I would slaughter it" and a gentile heard and caused it to become blemished, he may slaughter it, because it was not brought about with his knowledge.

If we saw a person perform a deed that would indirectly cause a firstborn to contract a blemish, it contracted a blemish, but we do not know whether he intended that this blemish be caused, he should not slaughter the firstborn, because of it. What is implied? He placed barley in a narrow place where the walls were studded with thorns, when the firstborn ate the barley, its lip became split. Even if the owner was a Torah sage, he should not slaughter the firstborn because of it. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

If a firstborn animal was pursuing a person and he kicked it to divert it, or even if he kicked it because it pursued once before, should he have caused a blemish when he kicked it, he may slaughter the firstborn because of it.

When children caused a firstborn to become blemished through sport and similarly, if a gentile caused a blemish intentionally, the firstborn may be slaughtered because of it. If they did so in order to cause it to be permitted, it may not be slaughtered because of it.

When the blood of a firstborn ceased flowing freely, its blood may be let, provided one does not intentionally cause a blemish. If a blemish was caused through the bloodletting, the animal may be slaughtered because of it.

It is permitted to cause a firstborn animal to become blemished before it emerges into the world and the firstborn may be slaughtered as a consequence. When does this apply? When the Temple is not standing. Then leniency is granted, because ultimately the animal will be eaten after it becomes blemished. When, however, the Temple is standing, this is forbidden.

When one witness testifies in the name of another witness that a blemish was not brought about knowingly, his word is accepted. Even a woman's word is accepted if she says: "This blemish was caused on its own accord in my presence," and the animal may be slaughtered.

A shepherd's word is accepted when he states that any blemish that could have been caused by human activity came about on its own accord. The animal may be slaughtered because of such blemishes. When does the above apply? When the shepherd was an Israelite and the firstborn animal is in the possession of a priest. If, however, the shepherd was a priest and the firstborn was still in the possession of its Israelite owner, the shepherd's word is not accepted and we suspect that perhaps he caused it to become blemished so that it would be given to him.

The word of a priest who testifies on behalf of another priest that a firstborn became blemished on its own accord is accepted. We do not suspect that they are acting in collusion with each other. The rationale is that all of the priests are suspect to cause a blemish to a firstborn so that they can partake of it outside the Temple Courtyard. Therefore their own word is not accepted with regard to their own concerns. A colleague may, however, testify on his behalf, because a person will not transgress on behalf of another. Even a priest's children and the members of his household may testify with regard to a firstborn on his behalf. His wife may not, however, because she is considered as his own person.

Leniency is, however, shown in the following instance. A firstborn animal was in the possession of a priest and it became blemished. One witness testified that the blemish came as a matter of course, but we do not know whether the blemish is of the type that enables a firstborn to be slaughtered or not. If the priest who is in possession of the firstborn states that he showed this blemish to an expert and he permitted the firstborn to be slaughtered because of it, his word is accepted. We do not suspect that he did not show the animal to the expert and that the firstborn is considered as unblemished. For the priests were not suspected of slaughtering consecrated animals outside the Temple Courtyard, because this is a sin punishable by karet, as we explained.

Similarly, a priest's word is accepted if he states concerning a blemished firstborn animal: "An Israelite gave me this firstborn animal after it was blemished. It did not become blemished in my domain." As a result, we do not suspect that he caused the blemish. The rationale is that the matter will inevitably become revealed and the priest will be scared to lie, lest the Israelite owner be asked and state: "It was unblemished at the time it was given to him."

A firstborn animal may not be slaughtered because of its blemish unless a ruling to that effect was delivered by an expert who was authorized to do so by the nasi and told by him: "Give license for slaughter of firstborn animals because of their blemishes." Even if a blemish was large and obvious to everyone, license to slaughter it should not be granted by anyone other than an expert who was granted authority. Such an expert may inspect all firstborn animals except his own.

If there is no expert in a locale and the blemish was one of the blemishes that are obvious and distinct, e.g., the animal's eye was blinded, its forefoot was cut off, or its hindfoot was broken, it may be slaughtered with license of three members of the synagogue. Similarly, if a firstborn animal was taken to the Diaspora and contracted a distinct blemish, license for its slaughter can be granted by three members of the synagogue.

An expert should not inspect a firstborn animal in Eretz Yisrael unless he is accompanied by a priest, lest the expert tell the owner: "It is a blemish and it is permitted to slaughter the animal because of it," and he slaughter it for himself without giving it to the priest. For although he is not suspect to slaughter sanctified animalsoutside the Temple Courtyard, he is suspect to steal the presents given to the priests. Therefore if the owner was a wise man who is known to be careful in his observance, an animal may be inspected for him without a priest. If the blemish was something obvious to all, e.g., the firstborn's foreleg or hindleg was cut off, since he brought to a sage expert for inspection, we assume that he is careful in his observance. Hence the experts inspects the animal for him even though he is not accompanied by a priest.

When a person slaughters a firstborn animal and afterwards shows its blemish to an expert - even if the blemish is overtly recognizable and will not be affected by ritual slaughter, e.g., its foreleg or hindleg were cut off - since it was not slaughtered with license granted by an expert - it is forbidden to benefit from it and it should be buried like a firstborn animal that died.

When a firstborn had only one testicle, but two sacs, it was sat on its rear, and its genital area kneaded without finding the second testicle, an expert granted permission for its slaughter and it was slaughtered, it is permitted to be eaten even though the second testicle was found clinging to the flanks. Since its genital area was kneaded, the original ruling is not rescinded. If, however, its genital area was not kneaded, even though permission to slaughter it was granted by an expert, it must be buried.

When a person who is not an expert inspects a firstborn and has it slaughtered, it should be buried and he must make restitution from his personal resources. How much should he pay? A fourth of the worth of a small animal and half the worth of a large animal. Why does he not pay its entire worth? Because the owner of the animal was penalized so that he not delay offering the firstborn and so that he not raise a small animal in Eretz Yisrael.

When a person receives a wage for inspecting a firstborn animal for a blemish, the animal may not be slaughtered on the basis of his rulings unless he was a great expert and the sages knew that there were none like him and they allotted a fee to him for the visit and inspection whether a blemish was found or not.He should not take a fee for any given animal more than once and should continue to inspect it as long as it is brought to him, so that no suspicions will be aroused.

When a person is suspect to sell firstborn animals as ordinary animals, one may not purchase even the meat of deer from him, because it resembles the meat of a calf. One may not purchase from him hides that have not been processed, even the hides of a female animal, lest he cut off the place of the male organ and say: "This is the hide of a female animal." One may not purchase wool from him, even wool that has been whitened. Needless to say, this refers to wool that is still soiled. We may, however, purchase from him spun wool, rolls of wool and processed hides. The rationale is that one will not process the hide from an unblemished firstborn animal, because he fears to leave it in his domain, lest the judges hear and penalize him according to his wickedness.

When one slaughtered a firstborn and sold its meat and afterwards, it became known that he did not show it to an expert, what was eaten was eaten. The owner should, however, return the money paid by the purchasers. What was not eaten should be burned and the money returned. This law also applies when one feeds meat from an animal that is treifah, as will be explained in Hilchot Mikach UMemcar.

The following rules apply when it is discovered that a firstborn was treifah. If it was unblemished and it was discovered to be treifah after it was skinned, the hide should be burnt, as explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, and the meat should be buried. If it was slaughtered because of a blemish, the meat should be buried and the priests should be allowed to benefit from its hide, provided it was slaughtered on the basis of the ruling of an expert.

When the meat of a firstborn animal, whether unblemished or blemished, has been eaten according to law, just as it is permitted to benefit from its hide, so too, is it permitted to benefit from its shearings. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to benefit from any wool which is cut off from it while it is alive - and even from wool that it shed, and even to wool that was shed after the animal contracted a blemish. Even after it was slaughtered, and, needless to say, after it died, the wool remains forbidden. For the same wool that was shed from the animal during its lifetime remains forbidden even after these events take place. These same laws apply with regard to the tithes of animals. We have already explained in Hilchot Me'ilah that this decree was instituted only with regard to the firstborn and tithe sacrifices, because they do not come to secure atonement. Hence with regard to these sacrifices, there is room to suspect that the owner will leave them in his domain to take all the wool that sheds from them. This is undesirable, because as we have already explained, it is a mitzvah to eat the firstborn in the first year of its life, whether it is unblemished or blemished.

The following rules apply when a firstborn has loose-hanging wooland it was slaughtered because of its blemish. It is permitted to benefit from the loose-hanging wool that resembles the animal's other wool. It is, however, forbidden to benefit from the loose-hanging wool that does not resemble the animal's other wool, i.e., its roots are turned in the opposite direction and face its tips, for this is considered as if it were shed while the animal was alive.

When the shearings of the wool from a firstborn animal, even one that was blemished, become intermingled with the shearings of ordinary animals - even one with several thousand - they are all forbidden. The rationale is that the shearings are a significant entity and even the slightest amount causes the entire mixture to be considered as consecrated. When one weaves a full length of a sit of wool from a firstborn animal in a garment, it should be destroyed by burning. If wool from consecrated animals was used, even the slightest amount causes the entire garment to be consecrated.

There is an obligation to apply the laws of a firstborn to an animal owned by partners. The terms "your cattle and your sheep" was used only to exclude an animal owned in partnership with a gentile. For if a gentile was a partner in the ownership of a cow or of the fetus it is carrying - even if the gentile owns only a thousandth share of the mother or the offspring, it is exempt from the requirements pertaining to the firstborn. If the gentile owned one specific limb of one of them, e.g., a forefoot or a hindfoot, any limb which if cut off that limb would render the animal as blemished, exempts it. If the limb owned by the gentile could be cut off without disqualifying the animal as a firstborn, it is obligated in the laws of the firstborn.

When a person purchases a fetus being carried by a cow owned by a gentile or he sells a fetus being carried by his cow to a gentile, even though he is not permitted to do so, the fetus is exempt from the requirements of the firstborn. He is not penalized because of this matter.

When a person receives an animal from a gentile to care for it and the offspring would be shared or a gentile receives an animal from a Jew under such an arrangement, the offspring are exempt from the requirements of firstborn animals.This is implied by Exodus 13:2: "All the first issue of the womb among the children of Israel," i.e., everything must belong to a Jew.

The following laws apply when a Jew receives sheep from a gentile at a fixed price and agreed that the profit will be split between them, but if the worth of the animal is reduced, the loss is born by the Jew alone. Even though the sheep are in the domain of the Jew and are his property, since if the gentile will not find any other resources to collect his debt for the lost sheep from him, he will take these sheep and their offspring, it is considered as if he has a lien on them and their offspring. Thus the gentile is considered as having a share of them and they and their offspring are exempt from the requirements of the firstborn. The offspring of their offspring, however, are liable for they belong to the Jew and the gentile has no authority over them.

When a Jews pays money to a gentile and thus acquires an animal from a gentile according to their law, even though he did not perform meshichah,he acquires the animal and the requirements of the firstborn apply to its offspring. Similarly, if a gentile acquired an animal from a Jew according to their laws and paid money, he acquires it even though he did not perform meshichah and its offspring are exempt from the requirements of the firstborn.

When a gentile converts and it is not known whether his cow gave birth before he converted or afterwards, it is considered a firstborn because of the doubt.

When a person purchases an animal from a gentile and does not know whether it gave birth already or not, if it gives birth in his possession, the offspring is considered a firstborn because of the doubt. It should be eaten by its masters after it becomes blemished, but is not given to a priest. The rationale is that when a person desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

When a person purchases an animal that is giving suck from a gentile, he need not suspect that it is giving suck to the offspring of another animal. Instead, we operate under the assumption that it has already given birth. Even if the animal to which it is giving suck is like another species, even if it is like a pig, it is exempt from the requirements of the firstborn. Similarly, the offspring of an animal that is providing milk is exempt from the requirements of the firstborn. The rationale is that we rely on the assumption that most animals do not provide milk unless they have given birth previously.

When a person purchases an animal from a fellow Jew, we operate under the assumption that it already gave birth unless the seller states that it did not give birth yet. The rationale is that we assume a Jew will not remain silent and cause a fellow Jew to partake of a consecrated animal outside the Temple Courtyard. Hence we conclude that it certainly gave birth previously. Therefore the owner sold the mother without any qualification.

The following laws apply when a small animal miscarries and discharges a fetus whose form has not become very distinct and evident to all. It is called a tinuf. If the shepherds say: "It was a fetus, but its form has become marred," the future offspring of this animal is exempt from the requirements of the firstborn. It must, however, be shown to a shepherd who is knowledgeable. Therefore if one purchases an animal from a gentile, even if it was small and gave birth within its first year of life, the offspring is considered as a firstborn of doubtful status, because it is possible that it discharged a tinuf while owned by the gentile. Similarly, when a large animal discharges a placenta, it is a sign that it carried a fetus, for a placenta is never formed without a fetus and the offspring is exempt from the requirements of the firstborn. It is permitted to throw that fetus to the dogs for the following reasons. Only a male is sanctified as a firstborn. We assume that offspring are half male and half female. We have already explained that a male that does not have some of the distinguishing signs of its mother is not consecrated as a firstborn. Thus the lesser portion of animals' first offspring is consecrated as a firstborn. Hence since the probability is less than half, it is not considered. When, by contrast, a consecrated animal discharges a placenta, it must be buried. For the female offspring are bound by the same laws as the male.

When a large animal discharges a flow of blood, the future offspring of this animal is exempt from the requirements of the firstborn, for we assume that there was an offspring in it, but there was much more blood and it lost its form and its existence was nullified. We must bury the flow of blood like a stillborn firstborn animal, even though this flow of blood has no consecrated quality. Why is it buried? In order to publicize the matter that the offspring of this animal was exempted from the requirements of the firstborn.

We already explained with regard to the concept of a woman in the niddah state that the form of a human fetus is completed on the fortieth day after conception. Thus when a woman miscarries after less than 40 days, she is not considered to have miscarried a fetus. Our Sages did not, however, conclusively determine the amount of days in which the form of an animal fetus is completed. They did, however, say that an animal which discharges a tinuf does not become pregnant, nor does it carry another fetus until after 30 days.

When an animal left pregnant and returned empty, her next offspring is considered as a firstborn because of the doubt involved. Perhaps what she discharged was not an entity that exempts her offspring from the requirements of the firstborn. A fetus that was miscarried is not considered to have "opened its mother's womb" unless its head was the size of top of the needle of the woof.

When an animal that is having difficulty giving birth to its firstborn, the offspring may be cut up limb by limb and the limbs extracted and thrown to the dogs immediately. The offspring that follows is a firstborn. If the greater portion of a fetus emerges at one time, it must be buried and the future offspring of the mother is exempted from the requirements of the firstborn. If one cut off a limb, extracted it, put it aside, cut off another limb, until the greater portion of the fetus is completed, all of the limbs are required to be buried and the future offspring of the mother is exempted from the requirements of the firstborn. [The rationale is that] since the greater part of the animal was taken out - whether whole or cut in pieces - and it is present before us, it becomes consecrated retroactively.

When a third of the fetus emerged and it was sold to a gentile and then a second third emerged, it is consecrated retroactively and the future offspring of the mother is exempted from the requirements of the firstborn. If a third of the offspring was removed by Caesarian section and, afterwards, two thirds emerged through the womb, it is not consecrated. The rationale is that the first larger portion did not emerge from the womb and the consecration would have been brought about retroactively.

The following laws apply when the lesser portion of one limb emerges from the womb together with the greater portion of the animal. Since the portion that emerges constitutes the greater portion of the fetus, the future offspring of the mother is exempted from the requirements of the firstborn and the portion that emerged should be buried.. If only half of the fetus emerges from the womb together with the greater portion of one limb, there is an unresolved doubt whether the future offspring of the mother is exempted from the requirements of the firstborn or not. Therefore the next offspring is a firstborn of doubtful status.

When a firstborn was wrapped in a fiber and removed from the womb without touching the womb or it was wrapped with a placenta of another animal or it was wounded up together with its sister and emerged, since it did not touch the womb, it is considered as a firstborn of doubtful status.

If one cleaved the wombs of two animals together and a fetus emerged from one and entered the other, there is an unresolved doubt: Is the future offspring of the animal to whose womb the firstborn entered exempted from the requirements of the firstborn, for its womb was "opened?" Or is it not exempted until it "opens its womb" when giving birth to its own offspring?

If the walls of the mother's womb opened and the firstborn emerged without touching the walls of the womb, there is an unresolved doubt: Is it consecrated because it touches the walls of the mother's womb? Or is it consecrated because it was in the space of the mother's womb?

If the walls of the the mother's womb were uprooted from their place and were suspended around the offspring's neck, there is an unresolved doubt: Do they cause the offspring to be consecrated only when they are in their place? Or do they cause it to be consecrated even if they are not in their place.

If the flesh supporting the walls of the womb decomposes, the offspring is not consecrated. If the walls of the womb are partially stripped off, but the portion that remained is greater than the portion that was stripped off and the offspring emerged through the open area or the portion that was stripped off is greater than the portion that remained and the offspring emerged through the portion that remained, the offspring is a firstborn of doubtful status.

The following laws apply when a sheep that had not given birth before gives birth to two males. Even if both of their heads emerged at the same time, it is impossible that one did not emerge before the other. Since it is not known which emerged first, the priest should take the weaker one and the second one is a firstborn of doubtful status. If one of them died, the priest does not receive anything, for the living offspring is of doubtful status and we follow the principle: "When one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him." Similarly, if the mother gave birth to a male and a female, the male is of doubtful status, for perhaps the female emerged first. Therefore the priest does not receive anything, for when one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him.

When there are two sheep that have not given birth previously and they give birth to two males, they are both given to the priest. If they gave birth to a male and a female and they become intermingled, the male is given to the priest. If they gave birth to two males and a female, the priest may take the weaker one. If one of them died, the priest does not receive anything. The rationale is that the male that is alive is a firstborn of doubtful status and when one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him. If the two sheep gave birth to two females and a male or two males and two females the males are firstborn of doubtful status. For it is possible to say that the female was born first and then the male. Hence the priest does not receive anything, because when one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him. If one of the sheep had given birth beforehand and one had not, should they give birth to two males and they become intermingled, they are both firstborn of doubtful status and the priest may take the weaker one. If one dies, the priest does not receive anything, for the living offspring is of doubtful status. Similarly, if the two sheep give birth to a male and a female and it is not known which gave birth to which, the priest does not receive anything, for the male is of doubtful status.

Whenever a firstborn is of doubtful status, the law is that it should be allowed to pasture until it becomes blemished and then it may be eaten by its owner. If a priest takes possession of it, it is not expropriated from him. He must partake of it only after it becomes blemished. He may not offer it as a sacrifice, for only an offspring that is definitely a firstborn is offered as a sacrifice, lest one slaughter an ordinary animal in the Temple Courtyard.

When a person had both animals that had given birth before and animals that had not given birth before in his herd and they both gave birth while no one was present. If the owner entered and found those who had given birth previously giving suck to females and those who had not given birth previously giving suck to males, we do not suspect that the offspring of one went to another to suck and the offspring of the other went to the first. Instead, we follow the presumption that every animal is giving suck to its own offspring.

When two individuals entrusted male animals - one a firstborn and one an ordinary animal - with a shepherd and one of the animals died, the shepherd may leave the second animal between them and depart. This animal is considered a firstborn of doubtful status and should be divided between the two owners, because neither can identify his animal.

When a person entrusts a firstborn animal to another person who placed it together with his own ordinary animal and then one of them died, but they do not know which one, we follow the principle: When one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him. The animal is considered a firstborn of doubtful status. Even if a priest who is a shepherd leaves his firstborn animal in a person's courtyard together with that person's ordinary animal, should one of them die, we follow the principle: When one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him. We may not expropriate property from a person's courtyard unless there is substantial proof, for it is with the consent of the owner of the firstborn that it was placed together with the ordinary animal belonging to the other person.

Israelites are not suspect to cause blemishes to firstborn animals. Therefore the word of an Israelite is accepted if he states: "This is a firstborn of doubtful status." We inspect the blemish and permit him to partake of the animal if it is blemished.

Whenever a consecrated animal received a permanent blemish before it was consecrated and was later redeemed, its offspring are governed by the requirements of the firstborn. If they received a temporary blemish before they were consecrated or they were consecrated while unblemished and received a permanent blemish and were then redeemed, their offspring are exempt from the requirements of the firstborn. The rationale is that they did not become ordinary animals in all respects, as indicated by the fact that they are forbidden to be shorn and work is forbidden to be performed with them, as we explained in Hilchot Me'ilah.

When a person purchases an animal with money from the second tithes in Jerusalem, its offspring is obligated in the requirements of the firstborn. If, however, a person purchases an animal with the produce of the Sabbatical year, their offspring are exempt from the requirements of the firstborn. The rationale is that one is not allowed to perform commercial activity with the produce of the Sabbatical year, for concerning that, Leviticus 25:6 states: "to partake of it." Implied is that license is granted "to partake of it" and not to perform commercial activity with it. And if its offspring were obligated in the requirements of the firstborn, it is considered as if he would be performing commercial activity with a firstborn, because it is released from the category of the produce of the Sabbatical year. We already explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot that it is forbidden to perform commercial activity with substances that are forbidden to be eaten. And we already explained in Hilchot Terumot that it is forbidden to perform commercial activity with terumot. Similarly, it is forbidden to perform commercial activity with the firstborn even though it is permitted to sell them in the manner explained above.

If a person purchased a firstborn for a wedding feast for his son or for a festival and he did not need it, it is permitted to sell it.

We do not evaluate unblemished firstborn animals for Israelites, but we do evaluate blemished firstborn. We evaluate unblemished firstborn animals for priests in the present age, because ultimately, they will be eaten after they are blemished. Needless to say, we evaluate blemished animals for them.

It is a positive commandment to separate one out of every ten kosher animals, which are born to a person each year. This mitzvah applies only to cattle and sheep, as Leviticus 27:32 states: "All the tithes of your cattle and sheep...."

The tithing of animals applies with regard to ordinary animals, but not to consecrated ones. It applies in Eretz Yisrael and in the Diaspora, in the era that the Temple was standing and in the era when the Temple is not standing. Nevertheless, our Sages forbade tithing animals in the present era and ordained that they should be tithed only when the Temple is standing. This is a decree, lest the consecrated animal be eaten when it is unblemished and thus one will be violating a transgression punishable by karet: slaughtering consecrated animals outside the Temple Courtyard. If one transgressed and tithed in the present era, the animal is designated as a tithe offering and should be eaten after it contracts a disqualifying blemish.

All are obligated in the tithing of their animals: priests, Levites, and Israelites.

The laws applying to a tithe offering of an animal are that it should be slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard and its blood cast in one heave towards the Altar's base. Its organs and fats are offered on the altar's pyre and the remainder of the meat is eaten by the owner in Jerusalem like other sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. The priests do not receive any portion of it. Instead, it is given to its owner in its entirety, like the Paschal sacrifice. If it was blemished, whether it became blemished after it was designated or it was blemished when it was set aside, it may be eaten in any place.

It is forbidden to sell an animal designated as a tithe offering when it is unblemished, for Leviticus 27:33 states with regard to it: "It shall not be redeemed." According to the Oral Tradition, the phrase "It shall not be redeemed" also implies a prohibition against selling it; it is neither redeemed, nor sold at all. It appears to me that when one sells an animal designated as a tithe offering, the sale is of no consequence and the animal is not acquired by the purchaser. For this reason, the seller is not liable for lashes like one who sells property designated as a dedication offering to the priests, in which instance, the purchaser does not acquire it, or like one who sells a female captive, as will be explained in its place.

According to Rabbinic Law, it is forbidden to sell an animal designated as a tithe offering when it is blemished and even when it is slaughtered. This is a decree, lest one sell such an animal when it is alive. For this reason, we may not weigh one portion against another, as is done when weighing portions of a firstborn animal, because it appears as if he is selling it.

An animal designated as a tithe offering that belongs to orphans is permitted to be sold in an ordinary manner after being slaughtered when blemished. To prevent the orphans from suffering a loss, our Sages did not uphold their decree in this instance.

When an animal designated as a tithe offering is slaughtered when blemished, it is permitted to sell its fats, sinews, hide, and bones. Only the sale of its meat was prohibited. If one included the price for its meat together with the price for its hide, fats, and sinews and sold everything in a collective price, the sale is permitted. If the price of the bones was high and he included the price of the meat in the price of the bones, it is permitted.

Anyone's word is accepted with regard to the blemishes of animals designated as tithe offerings if he says: "This blemish came about on its own accord; it was not brought about intentionally." Even the statements of those individuals whose word is not accepted with regard to the blemishes of a firstborn animal are accepted with regard to an animal designated as a tithe offering. Moreover, a person may inspect the blemishes of his animals designated as tithe offerings and permit their slaughter if he is an expert. The rationale for these leniencies is that if a person desired, he could have blemished every animal in his flock and then tithed them. Thus from the outset, the tithed animal would be blemished.

When a person purchases lambs that were born this year or they were given to him as a present, he is not obligated to tithe them. The obligation applies only when the animals are born in his domain. Accordingly, if partners enter into a partnership with regard to animals: one brings 100 and the other brings 100 and they have them intermingle and own them jointly, these 200 are exempt from the requirement to tithe. The rationale is that each of the lambs is considered as having been sold. Similarly, if brothers inherit lambs in their first year of life from their father, they are exempt from the requirement to tithe. The offspring born to the partners or the brothers after the partnership was established, by contrast, from their jointly owned animals are obligated to be tithed. Similarly, if a partnership was established with money or brothers purchased animals from the funds of the estate, the offspring born afterwards are obligated to be tithed, for they were born in their domain and they are considered as one person. If the brothers and the partners divided their property after animals were born to them in their joint domain and then reestablished their partnership, the animals born previously are exempt from the requirement to tithe. The rationale is that when the assets of the partnership or the estate were divided, everything is considered as having been sold and animals that are sold are exempt. And when the partnership was reestablished, no new offspring was born to them afterwards. Even though they divided kids for kids and lambs for lambs, and even if they divided them by tens, they are all exempt from the tithes and considered as having been purchased.

When brothers and partners divided the financial assets of the partnership, but did not divide the animals, the animals are obligated to be tithed, for they are not considered as having been purchased yet. If, however, the animals of the partnership were divided even though the financial assets were not, the offspring are exempt.

When a person purchases ten unborn fetuses in their mother's womb,they all enter the corral for tithing, for they were born in his domain.

When a priest received ten newborn animals because of the return of property stolen from a convert, they are exempt from the tithes. The rationale is that the priestly presents are comparable to ordinary presents. And we already explainedthat when one gives a present, it is exempt from the tithes.

All the animals in one's herd are brought into the corral for tithing, whether they are unblemished or blemished, even those which are forbidden to be offered on the altar with the exception of hybrids, animals that are tereifah, born through Caesarian section, or "lacking in age." For all of these are exempt from the tithes. Similarly, an animal whose mother died or was slaughtered when it was born should not be tithed. These concepts are part of the Oral Tradition.

A purchaser is not exempt from the obligation to tithe unless he purchased the animals after they were fit to be tithed. Therefore one who purchases lambs in the seven days after their birth, is obligated to tithe them when the time comes.Since an animal that is "lacking in age" is not fit to be tithed, it is as if he purchased a fetus and it was born in his domain.

Whenever there is a doubt whether an animal is obligated to be tithed or exempt from being tithed, it is exempt from being tithed. Therefore when an orphaned lamb, a purchased one, or the like becomes intermingled with other lambs, they are all exempt from the tithes, because the status of each one of them is in doubt.

When a person possesses ten lambs and he separates one as the tithes or he possesses 100 and he separates ten as the tithes, these are not tithes. What, instead, should he do? He should gather all of the lambs or all of the calves born that year in a corral. He then makes a small entrance so that two cannot emerge at the same time. He positions their mothers outside the corral and they bleat so that the lambs will hear their voices and leave the corral to meet them. This is necessary, as implied by Leviticus 27:32 which states: "all that passes beneath the staff," i.e., they must pass on their own initiative; one should not remove them by hand. As they leave the corral one by one, the owner begins to count them with a staff: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. The tenth animal that departs, whether male or female, whether unblemished or blemished, should be painted with red paint, and the owner should say: "This is the tithe." If he did not paint the animals designated as the tithes with red paint, did not count them with a staff, or counted them while they are lying down or standing, the tithing takes effect. Since he counted them ten by ten and consecrated the tenth, it is considered a tithe.

It is not necessary to collect every animal born in a person's domain to one corral. Instead, the reckoning is made for every herd alone. If a person owned five lambs in Jerusalem and five in Acre, they are not combined into a single herd. Instead, they are all exempt from the tithes. What is the distance required to be between two herds for them to be combined? Sixteen mil.

If there are three herds and there are sixteen mil between each one, the three are combined. What is implied? There were nine on one side, nine on the other side, and one in the center, all three herds are brought into the corral together to be tithed.

Tithes are not taken from sheep for cattle, nor from cattle for sheep. One must, however, tithe sheep for goats and goats for sheep. This is derived from Leviticus 27:32: "All the tithes of your cattle and tzon." Implied is that all light, domesticated animals are included as one category, for they are both referred to with the term seh and they are like one species.

We do not tithe animals born in one year with animals born in another year just as we do not tithe the crops from the new year for the crops from the past year nor the crops from the past year for the crops of the new year, as Deuteronomy 14:22: "Which are produced by the field year for year." It appears to me that if one tithed animals from one year for animals of another year, the tithing is binding because of the severity of consecrated animals. For the Torah did not explicitly emphasize that the tithing of animals must be from the same year.

All of the offspring born from the first of Tishrei until the twenty-ninth of Elul are combined and are tithed for each other. If five lambs are born on the twenty-ninth of Elul and five on the first of Tishrei of the following year, they are not combined. If an animal gave birth to offspring in its first year of life, it and its daughter should be brought into the corral together to be tithed.

The lambs which are born are not like tevel from which one may not eat until one tithes as explained in its place. Instead, one may sell or slaughter all the offspring one desires until one tithes. Then animal designated as the tithe offering will be consecrated and must be eaten according to law, as explained above.

Our Sages established three fixed times for the tithing of one's animals.When one of these dates arrives, it is forbidden for a person to sell or slaughter the offspring of his animals until he tithes. If he slaughters, the meat is permitted. These are the three dates: the fifteenth day before the Paschal sacrifice, the fifteenth day before Shavuot, and the fifteenth day before Sukkot. Each of these times is called a "threshing floor" for the tithing of animals. Thus the "threshing floor" for the tithing of animals is on the last day of the month of Adar, on the thirty-fifth day of the Counting of the Omer, and on the last day of the month of Elul. Why were the "threshing floors" established on these dates? So that the animals would be available to the festive pilgrims. For even though it is permitted to sell animal offspring before they were tithed, as we explained, the people would refrain from selling them until they would tithe them and perform the mitzvah.

When a person brought all his sheep or cattle into a corral and began to sanctify the tenth animal that departs until there remained less than ten in the corral, those should be left for the next "threshing floor" and they are joined together with those born and tithed and all are collected in one "threshing floor." Even though one knows that some will remain in the corral, he is obligated to bring them all into the corral and the remainder will be left over.

The following laws apply when a person brought sheep into a corral, they began to depart one by one with him counting them as we explained, and he erred in numbering them, and called the eighth lamb or a lesser number, the tenth. In such a situation and, similarly, if he called the twelfth or a greater number, the tenth, those animals are not consecrated. If, however, he called the ninth or the eleventh, the tenth, they become consecrated. This matter is a halachah, [communicated by the Oral Tradition: that an error when tithing causes one greater than the tenth or one lesser than the tenth to be consecrated, but not those greater or lesser than they. Even if one called the ninth, the tenth, the tenth, the ninth, and the eleventh, the tenth, whether in error or intentionally, all three are consecrated.

What are the laws that apply to them? The ninth is not sacrificed. Instead, it should be eaten after it becomes blemished. The tenth is the tithe offering and the eleventh should be offered as a peace offering. Accompanying offerings are required to be brought with it. Its holiness may not be transferred to another animal, because it is considered as an animal to which holiness has been transferred itself. When does the above apply? When the person counting was the owner of the animals. When, however, a person appoints an agent to tithe for him and the agent errs with regard to the ninth or the eleventh, only the true tenth one is consecrated, for he was not appointed as an agent to err and to cause him a loss, only to consecrate the animals in the appropriate manner.

The statement that if one called the eleventh animal "the tenth," it becomes consecrated applies when one called the tenth, "the ninth." If, however, he called the tenth "the tenth," and called the eleventh, "the tenth," the eleventh is not consecrated. The rationale is that the name "tenth" was not removed from the true tenth animal. Moreover, even if the owner was silent when the tenth animal departed and did not call it "the tenth" or "the eleventh" and when the eleventh departed, he called it "the tenth," it is not consecrated. The rationale is that the tenth is consecrated as a matter of course, even though it was not explicitly called "the tenth." Hence, since the name "tenth" was not removed from the appropriate animal, the eleventh is not consecrated.

The following rules apply when the ninth and the tenth depart together. Whether the owner called both of them "the ninth" or both of them "the tenth," they are both consecrated. They both, however, should be eaten after they contract blemishes and neither should be sacrificed. Similarly, if the tenth and the eleventh departed together, if he called them "the tenth," the tenth and the eleventh are considered as intermingled. It is as if a tithe offering becomes intermingled with a peace-offering, in which instance, the law is that they should be eaten after they contract blemishes, as we explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim. If he called them "the eleventh," it is considered as if the tenth animal and an ordinary animal are intermingled and they should be eaten after they contract blemishes.

If, when the owner began counting, two animals, the first and the second, departed together, he should count all the animals in pairs and consecrate the tenth pair. Similarly, if he counted them all in sets of three or in sets of five, the tenth set becomes consecrated.

If, at the outset, two departed and he counted them as one, and then he called the third that departed after them, "the second," and continued counting one by one in the ordinary manner, the ninth and the tenth are both consecrated and should be eaten after they contract blemishes. The rationale is that the ninth is the true tenth, because two animals departed at the outset. And the one that he called "the tenth" is really, the eleventh and when the eleventh is called "the tenth," it is consecrated, as we explained.

If one counted backwards, i.e., when the first one departed, he counted it "ten;" when the second departed, he counted "nine;" until the tenth departed and he counted "one," it is consecrated, because the tenth is consecrated on its own accord.

If one mistakenly called the ninth, "the tenth" and the tenth remained in the corral, the ninth should be eaten after becoming blemished and the one that remained in the corral is the tithe. This applies even though it did not depart, nor was it designated as the tenth, because the tenth is consecrated on its own accord. If the tenth died in the corral, the ninth should be eaten after becoming blemished and the eight which departed after being counted are exempt even though the tenth among them was not consecrated to be offered, but instead, died before departing, because once animals have been counted in a manner that was fitting for them to be tithed, they are exempt.

When one brought ten lambs into a corral and proceeded to count, if one of those counted died, he should continue counting and complete the reckoning in its ordinary manner, consecrating the tenth, even though there are only nine that are alive at the time.

If after a person began counting, one of the animals in the corral died, those which were counted are exempt, because once animals have been counted in a manner that was fitting for them to be tithed even though one was not separated for them, they are exempt, as stated. Those that remained in the corral should be left for a later "threshing floor" until others are added to them. Similar concepts apply when one had fourteen lambs and brought all of them into a corral and four departed through one opening and were counted, then six departed through another opening and were counted and four remained in the corral. If the four depart through the opening that the six departed, one should be taken as the tithe and all the others are exempt. The four that departed at first through the first opening are exempt, because once animals have been counted in a manner that was fitting for them to be tithed, they are exempt. If the remaining four departed from the opening through which the first four departed, the four that departed at the outset and the six that departed afterwards through the second opening are exempt, because each one of them was counted in a manner that was fitting for them to be tithed. For at the time each of the groups departed, others remained in the corral to complete the counting and the tithing. The four that remained, however, although they departed through the first opening and were counted, were not counted in a manner appropriate for tithing. Therefore they must be included in another "threshing floor." The following laws apply if four departed through one opening, four departed through another opening, and six remained. If all six departed from the same one of the two openings, one should be taken as a tithe and all the lambs are exempt from being tithed again. If, however, the six departed from both openings, some from one and some from the other, the six are included in another "threshing floor." The eight that departed from the two openings at the outset, however, are exempt, for each set of four was counted in a manner appropriate for ten to be counted and the tithe taken, for there were six remaining in the corral.

If there were nineteen lambs in the corral and nine departed from one opening and nine departed from the other opening, the last one should be taken as the tithes and all the previous are exempt, for both sets of nine were counted in a manner appropriate for tithing.

If one was counting and a lamb stuck out its head and the majority of its body from the corral and then returned, it is considered as having been counted in all contexts.

If a person was counting and interrupted the reckoning because his colleague spoke to him or because night fell beginning the Sabbath, he should continue and complete his counting afterwards.

When one was counting those that departed one by one and one consecrated the tenth and one of those which had been counted jumped back into the corral, becoming intermingled with those which had not been counted as of yet and which were not tithed, all of those in the corral are exempt. The rationale is that there is a doubt concerning every lamb in the corral: Is the one that was counted and jumped back in or is it another one? And we have already stated, that all those which were counted are exempt.

If one of the animals selected as the tithes jumped back into the corral and became intermingled with the remaining animals, they should all be left to pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish. Then they should be eaten after acquiring the blemish.