Advertise on podcast: Talking Talmud

Chapter 9! On tithing animals... and the verses from the Torah that prescribe this fairly broad mitzvah, throughout the world and regardless of whether the Temple stands. Sacrificial animals, however, are not part of the tithe. "Herds" (cattle and so on) cannot be tithed in a group that includes various species, however, when it comes to "flocks," even sheep and goat, can combine for tithing purposes. And not "new" and "old" together... Plus, diving deeper into combining species and into the old/new restriction, using a fortiori logic. Also, can the tithing of animals be compared to the tithing of grain and learn from the comparison? Maybe sheep and goats shouldn't be able to be tithed together either? But the term "flocks" is inclusive.

2 mishnayot: 1 - A first-born son receives a double-inheritance from his father's property, though not his mother's property. (Note: The potential modern will complications (which are largely avoidable, but still) would be in Israel, not elsewhere). But improvements to the property after the father's death and other kinds of property would not be counted as a double portion. Nor a woman receiving her ketubah, nor daughters receiving mezonot, nor a yavam. 2 - During a jubilee year (yovel), the land reverts, but there are exceptions -- including the double-portion of the first-born. Note the Gemara's interpretation of this mishnah -- a husband's inheritance of the wife's property may not revert either, or if it does, perhaps he wouldn't be compensated for it. But this inheritance, according to the Gemara, becomes her family's ancestral plot for burial, and not some other land.

2 mishnayot! 1 - Redemption of the first-born son has to be done via the 5 silver coins (not via objects or land or promissory notes). Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi says - Anything but promissory notes would work, which indicates that his view is not the view of the mishnah. 2 - If the father paid the coins at once, that fulfills the obligation, but what if he handed them over one by one, or to several kohanim? Or if the kohen takes the payment and then returns it? Note how wealthy Rabbi Tarfon didn't keep the coins.

On the 5 silver coins for the redemption of the first-born son, and how they were valuated in other currencies. Which meant getting the math exactly right -- as the example of Rav Ashi sending to R. Acha, who was a kohen, and they need to send back and forth to get the currency exactly right. From the money/coins of the pidyon ha-ben -- when the dedicated coinage to the Temple, there was concern that the Hadrianic and Trajan coins would be all mixed up and profaned that money. Then a verse in Ezekiel calmed the sages down, because it was no longer considered to be consecrated. But there's so much gold and silver in the world - how would this restriction help?!

More mishnayot! 1 - If the first-born son dies within 30 days of birth, there's no redemption to pay and the kohen would return any payment that was already made. After 30 days, the father owes the payment. But what about on the 30th day? 2 - If the father dies, the presumption is that the child is or is not redeemed, based on the timing of the death, compared to those 30 days. What about a first-born father who discovers he himself was never redeemed? Which redemption takes precedence? Note the standard roles in dispute of Rav and Shmuel. Plus, the prevalence, or lack thereof of pidunei ha-ben. 3 - On the coins of the redemption themselves, and how they are derived to be Tyrian shekels from verses in the Torah about redemption in the wilderness. Likewise, other flat fee payments.

Two mishnayot! 1 - A woman gives birth to male twins, and it's not known which of them is the first born, the father gives the coins to the kohen, because one of them needs to be redeemed. But what if one of them dies before 30 days? Or after 30 days? Of if the twins are male and female, and you don't know which was born first? What if it's the father who died? Plus, the case of two people with the same name, and how the adjudicate claims against one of them. 2 - If a man has two wives, and each gives birth to a male baby, the father needs to redeem both of them. But what if one dies within 30 days? What if one of the babies is a girl? And what if the father dies? What if there is further confusion, in cases with two fathers, and the need to redeem sons, but then all the permutations kick in again, with greater scope to argue that the person who owes the redemption is the other guy.

More on the human first-borns -- who is exempt from the need to redeem the first born. The son of a woman from the Tribe of Levi -- but if her husband a kohen or a levi, the child would already not need redemption. So is the father a Yisrael? A non-Jew? Also, would a kohen need to redeem himself? For example, a kohen who has set the kehunah apart from himself. And: a new mishnah! With the kind of first-born statuses for inheritance and for the kohen. Where a miscarriage is explicitly not considered to be a birth. What about a first-born who was delivered by C-section? And what if there is another child born via "natural childbirth" after the C-section? Some say that second child would also need to be redeemed.

Finishing out the 7th chapter, about the blemishes among human beings: kohanim need to commit to not making themselves come in contact with a dead body. How is that different from marrying a person who is prohibited to the kohanim? And starting the 8th chapter -- on the process of redeeming the first-born son -- in the new mishnah! Or rather, there are different statuses for which one may or may not be called the first born, such as the inheritance and also for the kohen. With some complicated cases about premature births. Also, defining the moment of birth -- when the forehead emerges, even if the rest of the body hasn't followed yet. Including the case of a woman who was converting during the process of delivering the baby, and she is non-Jewish when the forehead emerges and Jewish when the rest of the baby emerging. And identifying that child (or any person, it seems), is as per one's face, from the forehead to including the nose (or perhaps before the nose).

More blemishes, but some of them are the kind of things that, nowadays, we correct fairly easily (bowleggedness, for example). Or a kohen with an extra digit -- which is not common, but not uncommon either, with a significant genetic component. Nowadays, they are easily removed. Or less changeable, perhaps, but also less identifiable as a blemish these days, like left-handedness. Plus, the question of how many bones are in the human body. Also, other "full-body" exemptions from being able to serve -- blemishes, of a kind, such as drunkenness, among others -- that disqualify a person from serving, but not an animal from being able to be the sacrifice. Including skin color and great height, with a side recommendation that like marry not-like. Plus, similar blemishes (including sins and crimes) that would disqualify an animal from being sacrificed if it were party to these (such as bestiality), but the person is not disqualified.

Cases of disqualification of kohanim from doing the Temple service for all kinds of eye blemishes, from blindness to pale spots on the eyes or excess tears -- and how they are derived from the verses in Leviticus. Also, mishnayot! 1 - Blemishes that are unsightly physical blemishes, including eyes and other parts of the face. Plus, an assessment of Moshe's height -- based on that of the Tabernacle, so perhaps he was 10 amot high, which would have been too tall, and indeed a blemish of disproportion. 2- Additional blemishes - if a man has breasts that distend like those of a woman; if his stomach or navel protrudes; if he has occasional epileptic seizures; and more. Plus, Torah scholars should not worry about urinating in public -- it's a health concern, as compared to drinking water in public, which was considered uncouth. With examples of the Torah scholars who, indeed, urinated in public. 3 - A kohen who has no testicles, or only one - those are blemishes that get in the way of working in the Temple. But maybe tis is only if the testicles were crushed?

Blemishes that disqualify kohanim from doing the Temple service -- derived from the verses in Leviticus. There are 3 categories of blemishes -- 1. appear in kohanim and animals; 2. appear in kohanim and not animals. 3. rabbinic disqualifications, especially as "mar'it ayin," in terms of unusual appearances. Including, for example, baldness, where some degree of hair loss is acceptable, but not entirely. Connecting blemishes of a person and those of an animal, even though we often distinguish between humans and animals -- as found in a gezerah shavah from the words in the Torah's verses. Also, why does the Torah provide all of the cases it does? If a blemish is disqualifying, why would listing the details be necessary to begin with? Plus, 2 mishnayot! 1 - Eyebrow blemishes, when it comes to kohanim. 2. Eye placement or eye health blemishes, also when it comes to kohanim.

With regard to an animal that is an androgynos, with both male and female sexual organs, is not considered for a first-born status, because it's not uniquely male. With editorial comments, as it were, made about the baraita that establishes these standards. Also, a tannaitic dispute on a tumtum (human) -- if this person betroths a woman, we accept the kiddushin, because the tumtum might be male. And if a man betroths a tumtum -- also, we accept the kiddushin, because the person might be female. What if the tumtum is male, but also sterile? One who is sterile has different standing with regard to the marital rules -- in terms of yibum, for example.

Beginning with a couple of mishnayot -- on a calf whose tail doesn't reach down to the upper leg joint, which is considered to be a blemish. Imagine a camel to help picture the join on the animal, which is more pronounced on the camel. Also, blemishes in a first-born that don't lead to slaughtering outside of the Temple -- with a decently long list, including, eventually, the tumtum and androgynous in the context of animals, and not people. Also, delving into the question of the tumtum with hidden g******s, where the gender is not known, as compared to an androgynous, who truly has both male and female g******s, which couldn't be slaughtered in the Temple, in the case of error. Also, note phenomena that may be treated as a blemish, but maybe it's only a physical cut, and not a real and lasting blemish. Plus, the application of the categories of tumtum and androgynous to the animals. Also, Rabbi Yishmael's opinion on this serious blemish -- in contrast to the other sages, who focus on how it isn't necessarily a blemish.

There are 7 mishnayot on this daf! (though we'll save the last one for tomorrow). 1 - On testicles and the nature of testicular blemishes. 2 - On the fact that blemishes are not how things are supposed to be; for example, an animal that should have 4 legs, but instead has 3 or 5. 3 - On blemishes that are not immediately discernible. 4 - On the jaw of a first-born animal, where the lower jaw juts out farther than the upper jaw, and how that's a blemish. 5 - On extra cartilage in the ear, and how that's a blemish. 6 - A list of blemished animals, whether in the eye or the leg or the mouth/jaw or the ear or the testicles... and whether these blemishes are discernible.

3 mishnayot! Rabbi Hanina bar Antignos on various blemish, specifically the pale spots that constitute a blemish. Note the requirement of an even amount of time between checking the blemish. Also, determining the timing of the impurity of a blemish. Plus, a list of possible, fairly minor blemishes -- including on the outer part of the lip. 2 - On the gums and whether the external gums are significant for the blemishes, with the new ones hidden away, as it were. Note - the phenomenon of the double teeth. 3 - Misshapen g******s, and also when it comes to already consecrated animals, not just the first-borns. Also, the potential of blemishes in an animal's tail.