Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

And is governed by the laws stated in Halachah 3. Similarly, the animal taken by the priest cannot be offered as a firstborn offering, because it is possible that it is an ordinary animal and thus one would be slaughtering an ordinary animal in the Temple Courtyard.
The rationale is that it is equally possible that either of the animals is the firstborn. One must be given to a priest, but he cannot take possession of the more choice animal, because we follow the principle: When one (the priest) desires to expropriate property (the more choice animal) from a colleague (the owner), the burden of proof is on him. Since the priest cannot prove that the more choice animal emerged first, he may not take possession of it. On the other hand, the owner cannot consider it as a totally ordinary animal either, for perhaps it is the firstborn.

This is a general principle applicable in many contexts of Jewish Law; see Hilchot Terumot 10:14, Hilchot Mechirah 20:5, et al.

Since the priest cannot prove that the living animal was born before the dead one, he may not take possession of it.

And is governed by the laws mentioned in Halachah 3. Parallel concepts that apply to firstling donkeys with regard to this and the situations mentioned subsequently are found in the later halachot of Hilchot Bikkurim, ch. 12.

And if the first issue of an animal’s womb is female, it is not consecrated.

Even though it is not known which mother gave birth to which offspring, it is of no consequence, for both must be given to the priests.

For the male is definitely a firstborn.

I.e., one animal gave birth to a male and the other to a male and a female and it was not known which - the male or the female - was born first. Thus that male is a firstborn of doubtful status. The two males then became intermingled and it was not known which one was definitely a firstborn and which was of doubtful status.

Since it is not known which is definitely a firstborn, but there is definitely a firstborn there, the priest must be given one animal, but the owner has the choice which animal to give him.

And in both instances, it is not known which one, the male or the female, was born first.

And the priest cannot prove it is a firstborn.

Since it is not known whether the sheep which did not give birth previously was the one which gave birth to the male or not, its status cannot be established definitively.

Once it becomes blemished, it may be eaten by its owners, because there is no sacred quality connected with it. It is not given to a priest because the priest does not have a claim that he can substantiate which will entitle him to expropriate the firstborn from the owner.

As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 2, Halachah 6, the same principle that has been used until now in support of the owner can now be cited in support of the priest. It is not certain that it is not a firstborn and it is now in the possession of the priest. Therefore if someone (in this instance, the owner) desires to expropriate property (the firstborn) from another person (the priest), the burden of proof is on the former. Since he cannot prove that it is not a firstborn, the priest is allowed to retain possession.
Many have questioned the Rambam’s decision. Indeed, volumes have been written about this issue. With regard to practice, there is a difference of opinion regarding the matter between Sephardic and Ashkenazic authorities. The Sephardic authorities (see Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 315:1) follow the Rambam’s view and allow the priest to maintain possession. The Ashkenazic authorities (Tur, Rama, lac. cit.) follow the opinion of Rabbenu Asher who states that since the priest had no right to take the animal, it is expropriated from his possession.

Nor is it permitted for him to shear it or work with it (see Hilchot Me’ilah 1:8).

Which is forbidden, as stated in Hilchot Shechitah 2:1.

In which instance, were each to be giving suck to its own offspring, the priest would be given the male animals.

And a distinction was not - or could not be - made to whom which animal belonged.

He is not held responsible. In Hilchot Sha’aleh UPikadon 5:4, the Rambam states that this law applies only when the two individuals entrusted the animals to the shepherd without him knowing. Otherwise, he is required to make restitution to each one.

I.e., after it becomes blemished.

Thus the owner is allowed to retain possession. For the one who entrusted the animal must prove that the living animal is his and he cannot.

Because it is possible it is the firstborn that was entrusted for safekeeping.

In contrast to the priests. See Chapter 2, Halachah 17.

I.e., the Israelite is saying that the animal is a firstborn of doubtful status and it was blemished in his possession on its own accord (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 314:10). Were a priest to make such a statement, we would not accept his word, because we would suspect that he intentionally caused the animal to become blemished.

Since it had a blemish, we understand that his intent in consecrating it was to sell it and purchase a sacrifice with the proceeds of the sale.

Since there was never any possibility that the animals be offered as a sacrifice, the consecration never affected their actual physical bodies. Hence, after they are redeemed, they are considered entirely as ordinary animals.

Since at the time they were consecrated, there was a possibility for them to be offered as sacrifices, the consecration affects their actual physical bodies. Hence, even after they are redeemed, they are never considered entirely as ordinary animals.

And since a vestige of their consecrated quality remains, there is no obligation to set aside their firstborn.

Hilchot Me’ilah 1:9.

I.e., he redeemed the second tithes and brought that money to Jerusalem to purchase food.

The second tithe is considered as belonging to “the Most High” (Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 3:17) and thus there is reason to think that the offspring would be exempt from the requirements of the firstborn, as the offspring of consecrated property is (see Chapter 1, Halachah 5). Indeed, for that reason, a person who steals such an animal is not required to make double restitution, nor may one use it to consecrate a woman (Hilchot Ishut 5:4). Nevertheless, since the animal was purchased for the intent of food, it is considered as the person’s private property and there is an obligation to redeem its firstborn (Rav Yosef Corcus).

For the produce of the Sabbatical year may be exchanged for other foodstuffs.

See Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel, ch. 6; see also Hilchot Sh’luchin VeShutafim 5:10.

The Ra’avad notes that the standard published text of Bechorot 12b states ‘“to partake of it,’ and not to burn it.” Thus were the offspring to be obligated to be offered as a firstborn, the fats and organs would have to be burnt on the altar’s pyre, violating the above restriction.
Rav Yosef Corcus explains that the proof mentioned by the Ra’avad is debated by the Talmud and requires much effort to substantiate, while the rationale stated by the Rambam is more straightforward. Hence he employs it even though it is not stated in the Talmud.

I.e., there is a specific time when the produce of the Sabbatical year has to be destroyed and, by exchanging the produce for the animal, the person releases himself from that obligation. Moreover, the priest to whom he gives the firstborn will be grateful to him. Since the purchaser derives these benefits from the exchange, he is considered as “performing commercial activity.”

Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 8:16-18.

Hilchot Terumot 12:21.

I.e., to buy and sell with the intent of making a profit (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 307:3).

Chapter 1, Halachot 17-18.

I.e., a blemished firstborn, for an unblemished firstborn could not be slaughtered for such a purpose.

For he did not purchase it with the intent of making a profit.

The term “evaluate an animal” refers to an arrangement in which an animal’s present worth is evaluated. It is then given to a shepherd who will care for it and feed it for a specific time. Afterwards, it will be sold and the profits divided between the owner and the shepherd [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11:9)]. Since an Israelite does not have a right to an unblemished firstborn, such an arrangement cannot be made with him, for he may not take appropriate care regarding the matter (Rav Yosef Corcus).

But not in the era of the Temple, for in that era, the priests do not have any rights to a firstborn, for it must be offered as a sacrifice and may not be used for personal benefit.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 78) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 360) include it as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 5, which emphasizes that the tithes of each year’s animals are calculated independently.

We are translating the Hebrew term tzon. When used in a general sense, that term can refer to both sheep and goats. See Chapter 7, Halachah 4.

There is a difference of opinion concerning this issue in Bechorot 53b. One opinion maintains that this principle does not apply to sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, because they are considered as “the property of their owners” and not “the property of the Most High.” Nevertheless, the Rambam follows the view which maintains that the tithes of these animals are not consecrated. The rationale is that Leviticus 27:32 states: “The tenth one will be holy.” Implied is that it is becoming holy through this process and not that it was holy, i.e., consecrated as a sacrifice, beforehand.

There are opinions in Bechorot 53a, which maintain that tithed animals from the Diaspora should not be offered as sacrifices. Instead, like firstborn animals (see Chapter 1, Halachah 5), one should wait until they become blemished and partake of them then. Although the Rambam’s wording could be interpreted as indicating that he subscribes to the other view stated there: that the tithed animals from the Diaspora should be offered as sacrifices, Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that, as in most other situations, the laws that apply to the firstborn apply to the tithe offering and such offerings from the Diaspora should not be offered as sacrifices.

This decree is mentioned in the Talmud, Bechorot 53a.

Literally, the soul being cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50, Mo’ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1).

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 18:1-2.

Although priests and Levites are exempt from the tithing of crops, this leniency does not apply with regard to the tithing of animals. It must be emphasized that the Rambam’s view is not accepted by all authorities. There are some who maintain that the priests and Levites are exempted in this instance as well (see the Mishneh LiMelech and the Minchat Chinuch, mitzvah 360, which discuss this issue). Support for the Rambam’s position can be brought from Shabbat 54b, which states that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah who was a priest of distinguished lineage separated 12000 calves as tithes from his herds.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:17-18.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 10:5.

Hilchot Korban Pesach 1:6; in contrast, the priests are given the breasts and the foreleg of the peace-offerings.

By its owners, no portion need be given to the priests, nor is there any need to redeem it.

There is no obligation to bring it to Jerusalem. It is, however, considered as a sacrificial animal that has become blemished and it is forbidden to shear or perform work with it.

This applies whether the animal is alive or whether it has been slaughtered (Bechorot 31a). There is, however, a distinction between the two states. When the animal is alive, the prohibition is Scriptural in origin. When it has been slaughtered, the prohibition is Rabbinic (Kessef Mishneh to Halachah 6). Rav Yosef Corcus agrees that this is the implication of the Rambam’s words, but questions the idea, citing sources from which one can infer that the prohibition against selling a living animal designated as a tithe offering applies even when it is blemished.

See Bechorot 32a where this concept is derived from a comparison to dedication offerings (charamim).

This phrase introduces a concept for which the Rambam has no explicit, prior Rabbinic source, but is instead, derived through logical deduction.

The Lechem Mishneh questions the Rambam’s ruling, noting that in Temurah 4b-5a, Ravva maintains that whenever one performs a transaction that violates a Scriptural prohibition, his deeds are not effective and yet, he is liable for lashes, for acting against God’s will. Although in that Talmudic passage, Abbaye differs and questions Ravva’s view, except for several specific instances (ya’al kegam), whenever there is a difference of opinion between Abbaye and Ravva, the halachah follows Ravva. The Lechem Mishneh and others offers possible resolutions to this issue.

See Hilchot Arichin 6:1-4 for a description of these gifts to the priests. Halachah 4 of that source mentions the prohibition against selling the articles dedicated.

See Hilchot Melachim, ch. 8, which explains that soldiers are given permission to be intimate with a female captive only once before she converts. If, afterwards, he does not desire to marry her, he must grant her freedom. He may not treat her as a slave himself, nor sell her to others.

I.e., because of the prohibition against selling such an animal.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 18.

In many instances, our Sages showed extra leniency to prevent orphans from suffering a loss; see Hilchot!shut 18:19, Hilchot Terumot 3:3, Hilchot Mechirah 9:3, et al.

Implied is that if the animal was unblemished, even the sale of these portions of its body is prohibited.

From Tosafot, Bechorot 31b, it would appear that here the reference is to forbidden fats. Permitted fats are considered as part of the animal’s meat.

The Hebrew term giddim used by the Rambam is a general term referring to sinews, nerves, cartilage, and blood vessels.

Bechorot 31a-32b explains that our Sages only enforced their decree with regard to “an entity that would cause an animal to be appraised while alive,” but not with regard to “an entity that would not cause an animal to be appraised while alive.” In other words, an animal is evaluated and sold with the intent of being slaughtered for the sake of its meat. This is an important benefit and therefore, it is with regard to such a matter that our Sages enforced their decree. An animal is not, by contrast, slaughtered for the sake of its hides, fats, et al. Hence, our Sages did not uphold their decree with regard to such matters.

I.e., the hide, the fats, et al, were worth 15 dollars and the meat, 25. One may tell the purchaser: “I am selling you the hide, the fats, and all other parts of the animal for 40 dollars and the meat is given to you as a present.”

Because utensils would be fashioned from them (Bechorot, loc. cit.).

The implication is that including the meat in a collective sale is permitted only when the entities with which it is sold are of value, at least to a certain extent.

Priests who own the animals (Chapter 2, Halachah 17).

This is not permitted with regard to a firstborn animal (Chapter 3, Halachah 1).

This is permitted, because he is not causing a blemish to a consecrated animal. The tithed animal does not become consecrated until it is counted as the tenth (Rav Yosef Corcus).

I.e. since there is a permitted way for a person to slaughter his animals designated as tithe offerings because they are blemished, we assume that a person would rather take that option than transgress and cause a blemish to a consecrated animal or lie about such a blemish.

And thus would have to be tithed by their owners.

Bechorot 57a derives this concept from the exegesis of Exodus 22:28-29: “You shall give Me the firstborn of sons. So shall you do to your oxen and sheep.” Just as children are not bought or received as presents, so too, the oxen and sheep should not be received as presents. Although the verse is referring to the firstborn, our Sages received the tradition that the concept should be applied to the tithes.

But not those born afterwards, as the Rambam proceeds to state.

For the division of the estate is considered equivalent to a sale.

I.e., each partner contributed a certain amount of funds.

Compare to Hilchot Shekalim 3:5. Indeed, the concept stated in this halachah is obvious and seemingly, unnecessary to be stated. Bechorot 56b, the Rambam’s source, mentions it only because of the concept stated in Hilchot Shekalim. Nevertheless, since it is mentioned in the Talmud, the Rambam also mentions it (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Or ten newborn animals, as stated in Halachah 15.

The fact that they were purchased before they were born is of no consequence.

As explained in Hilchot Gezeilah 8:5, when a person steals property from a convert who has no heirs and takes an oath that he did not steal the property, if the convert dies, he is obligated to pay the principal plus an additional fifth to the men of the priestly watch.
This law is mentioned more out of abstract deduction than practical relevance, for such a question would only arise when a person stole so many young sheep that he would have to give ten to each member of the priestly watch.

In which category the return of such stolen property is included, see Hilchot Bikkurim 1:7.

See Hilchot Gezeilah 5:8.

Halachah 10.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 1, for a description of the tithing process.

Animals forbidden to be offered because they were used for sexual relations, they were worshiped or set aside to be worshiped, they killed a human, were given to a prostitute for her fee, or exchanged for a dog (see Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:11).

Such animals are unfit to be offered on the altar. Using techniques of Biblical exegesis, Bava Kama 110a derives that such animals and those mentioned subsequently should not be counted when tithing one’s herds.

I.e., that have a physical condition that will cause them to die within twelve months. See Hilchot Shechitah, chs. 5-10.

Such animals are also never offered as sacrifices (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, loc. cit.).

An animal before its eighth day of life which is unfit to be offered as a sacrifice (ibid.:4).

I.e., an animal that did not live together with its mother for even the shortest period of time.

As stated in Halachah 10.

At which time they are unfit to be sacrificed and unfit to be tithed, as mentioned in the previous halachah.

From their eighth day of life onward.

See Halachah 12.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 14. Bava Metzia 7a states that it is only when we are certain that an animal is the tenth that it becomes holy.

See the last clause of Halachah 14.

I.e., he separated one without counting them ten by ten.

As stated in Halachah 4, the lambs and the calves should not be placed together.

For as the Rambam proceeds to state, the lambs must be counted one by one.

Bechorot 58b asks: Why bring the offsprings’ mothers, bring vegetables, for that would also motivate the young animals to leave the corral? That source answers that bringing the mothers will help in the selection process. As mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachot 10 and 14, animals that were purchased and those whose mothers died on the day of their birth are exempt from the tithes. Thus these animals will not be motivated to go out to the mothers, but they would be motivated by vegetables.
Rav Yosef Corcus explains that this is not an entirely foolproof plan, because animals whose mothers died afterwards would also not be motivated to leave. Nonetheless, it is effective in that it reminds one of these exemptions.

In contrast to the firstborn offerings which are only male.

As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 14.

As a mark of identification.

It is the initial preference for a verbal statement to be made (Bechorot 58b).

Even though they did not leave the corral.

For each herd is considered individually and each one is too small to require tithing.

A mil is a Talmudic measure equivalent to a kilometer.

I.e., the two herds on the extremities were each sixteen mil from the herd in the center.

Becharat 53a derives this concept from the verse cited by the Rambam as a prooftext, because it mentions sheep and cattle separately with regard to tithing.

We find this statement also in Hilchot Bikkurim 12:8. See Deuteronomy 14:4 which refers to “a sheep seh and a goat seh.”

See Hilchot Terumot 5:11; Hilchot Ma’aser 1:7; Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 11:15.

From the fact that Deuteronomy 14:22 states asair te’asair, repeating the command to tithe crops a second time, Bechorot 53b derives that there is a connection between this tithing and the tithing of one’s herds. Nevertheless, the commentaries question: If the association between the two tithings is established, why does it apply only as an initial preference, and not after the fact as well? In many other instances, when a concept is derived through exegesis, the association is complete and it also applies after the fact, even though it is not explicitly stated in the Torah.

I.e., the year for the tithing of animals begins on the first of Tishrei. All animals born in that year must be tithed together and should not be tithed with animals from another year. And on the first of Tishrei of the following year, the next year begins.

More specifically, born on the twenty-first of Elul, so that it will be fit to be offered on the twenty-ninth of Elul.

Even though there is only a one day difference between them, they are considered as having been born in separate years.

Nor may they be sold (Hilchot Ma’aser 6:6).

Hilchot Ma'acholot Assurot 10:19-21. That source defines tevel as produce from which the terumot and the tithes have not been separated. See also Hilchot Ma'aser 1:3, 5.

Chapter 6, Halachot 4-5.

I.e., according to Scriptural Law, there is no such obligation. Nevertheless, our Sages required a person to tithe his animals at this time for the reasons stated by the Rambam.

For our Sages did not enforce their decree after the fact.

Fifteen days before the holiday, people have already been studying about the holiday and its needs have taken their place in the forefront of their consciousness (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Just like completing the work necessary to process grain in the threshing floor makes one obligated to separate the tithes from it (Hilchot Ma’aser, ch. 3) so, too, the arrival of these “threshing floor” dates makes one obligated to separate the tithes of the animals.

The Rambam does not mention a calendar date as preparation for the holiday of Shavuot, because the celebration of that holiday is not dependent on a specific date, but on the completion of the Counting of the Omer. See Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 3:12.

In the previous halachah.

Rav Yosef Corcus explains that if the person would be able to hold back animals from the corral, one would have the tendency to hold back the valuable animals and allow the weaker animals to be tithed.