Mishnah Bekhorot 9:1-2

Sugya Map

The Mishnah in Bekhorot 9:1-2 delves into the intricate laws of Ma'aser Behema (animal tithe), a mitzvah rooted in the Torah (Leviticus 27:32-33). This segment of the Mishnah meticulously outlines its scope, applicability, procedural details, and the underlying halakhic principles, often engaging in dialectical reasoning to establish its conclusions.

Core Issues

1. Geographic and Temporal Scope: Is Ma'aser Behema observed in Eretz Yisrael and Chutz La'aretz? Does it apply in the presence or absence of the Beit HaMikdash?
2. Animal Types and Inclusivity: Which animals are subject to tithing? Are kodshim (sacred animals) included? What are the distinctions between bakar (cattle) and tzon (flock), and within tzon between kvasim (sheep) and izim (goats)? How do chadash (newborns of the current year) and yashan (older animals from a previous year) interact?
3. Acquisition and Ownership: Does animal tithe apply to animals acquired through purchase or gift? What about partners or brothers inheriting animals? This introduces the concept of kalbon (premium for half-shekel) as a parallel.
4. Exclusions from Tithing: Specific categories of animals are exempt, such as kilayim (hybrids), tereifot (non-kosher due to injury), yotzei dofen (Caesarean birth), animals less than eight days old, and yetomim (orphans). The Mishnah defines yetomim with specific criteria.
5. Tithing Cycles and Gathering Times: The Mishnah establishes specific "gathering times" (mishmarot) for animal tithe throughout the year, with differing opinions among Tana'im (R' Akiva, Ben Azzai, R' Elazar, R' Shimon, R' Meir). It also defines the Rosh Hashanah (new year) for animal tithe and the implications for combining animals across these temporal boundaries.
6. Procedure of Tithing: The Mishnah details the physical process: gathering in a pen, narrow opening, counting with a rod, painting the tenth animal. It also addresses post-facto validity for deviations from the ideal procedure and the consequences of errors (e.g., animals jumping back, miscounting).

Nafka Minas (Practical Ramifications)

• Applicability Today: The most significant nafka mina is whether the mitzvah is observed today, outside the Beit HaMikdash. The Mishnah's assertion that it applies "without the Temple" necessitates Rabbinic interpretation and takkanot.
• Combining Flocks: Whether animals from different species (cattle/flock) or within the same species but different types (sheep/goats) or different years (new/old) can be combined for the minimum quorum of ten animals affects the obligation.
• Defining Kedusha: The precise moment and method of tithing determine which animal becomes kodesh (sacred) and its subsequent halakhic status (e.g., ma'aser, shelamim, temurah).
• Permissibility of Sale/Slaughter: The "gathering times" determine when animals must be tithed before being sold or slaughtered.
• Consequences of Error: Errors in tithing can result in all animals becoming exempt, needing to be left to pasture until blemished, or leading to multiple animals attaining kedusha with different statuses.

Primary Sources

• Torah:
  • Leviticus 27:32: "וְכָל מַעְשַׂר בָּקָר וָצֹאן כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה קֹדֶשׁ לַה'" ("And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord.") - This is the foundational pasuk for Ma'aser Behema. The phrase "בָּקָר וָצֹאן" and "כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט" are central to the Mishnah's derivations.
  • Deuteronomy 12:5-6: "כִּי אִם אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם מִכָּל שִׁבְטֵיכֶם לָשׂוּם אֶת שְׁמוֹ שָׁם לְשִׁכְנוֹ תִדְרְשׁוּ וּבָאתָ שָׁמָּה. וַהֲבֵאתֶם שָׁמָּה אֶת עֹלֹתֵיכֶם וְאֶת זִבְחֵיכֶם וְאֶת מַעְשְׂרֹתֵיכֶם..." (But only to the place that the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to set His name there; you shall inquire after His dwelling place and come there. And you shall bring there your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes...") - This pasuk is key to the discussion of Ma'aser Behema being brought to Yerushalayim and its applicability outside Eretz Yisrael.
  • Deuteronomy 14:22: "עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר אֵת כָּל תְּבוּאַת זַרְעֶךָ הַיֹּצֵא הַשָּׂדֶה שָׁנָה שָׁנָה" ("You shall surely tithe all the produce of your seed that comes forth from the field year by year.") - This pasuk for Ma'aser Dagan (grain tithe) serves as an Hekkesh (analogy) for Ma'aser Behema regarding the "year-on-year" principle.
• Mishnah Bekhorot 9:1-2: The text itself provides the framework and the specific halakhic details.
• Gemara Bekhorot 33a, 53b: These sugyot directly engage with the Mishnah, providing the derashot, kushyot, and terutzim that underpin the Mishnah's statements.
• Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 1:1: Establishes the Rosh Hashanah for Ma'aser Behema.

Text Snapshot

Mishnah Bekhorot 9:1-2 presents a rich tapestry of halakhot and derashot. Let's examine key lines and their nuances.

Mishnah Bekhorot 9:1

"מעשר בהמה נוהג בארץ ובחוצה לארץ, בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית. בטהורים אבל לא במוקדשין. בבקר ובצאן, ואין מתעשרין מזה על זה; בכבשים ובעזים, ומתעשרין מזה על זה. בחדש ובישן, ואין מתעשרין מזה על זה. קל וחומר בחדש ובישן, שאינן עושין כלאים זה בזה, אינן מתעשרין מזה על זה, כבשים ועזים, שעושין כלאים זה בזה, אינו דין שלא יתעשרו מזה על זה? תלמוד לומר: 'וכל מעשר בקר וצאן... או הצאן' – כל הצאן אחד. מעשר בהמה מתערב עד מהלך יום ולילה. וכמה מהלך יום ולילה? ששה עשר מיל. היו בין אלו לאלו שלשים ושתים מיל, אינן מתערבין. היתה לו באמצע, מביאן ומתערבן באמצע. ר' מאיר אומר: הירדן מפסיק למעשר בהמה. הלוקח והמקבל במתנה פטור ממעשר בהמה. אחים ושותפין בזמן שהן חייבין בקלבון – פטורין ממעשר בהמה. חייבין במעשר בהמה – פטורין מן הקלבון. כיצד? לקחו מבית אבא – חייבין; ואם לאו – פטורין. חילקו וחזרו ונעשו שותפין – חייבין בקלבון ופטורין ממעשר בהמה." [Mishnah Bekhorot 9:1]

Nuances & Dikduk

• "נוהג בארץ ובחוצה לארץ, בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית": The term נוהג (in effect) is crucial. It signifies the Torah's intention for the mitzvah to apply universally. The Gemara (Bekhorot 33a) and Rishonim debate the practical implications of "שלא בפני הבית," especially regarding the Rabbinic takkanah to suspend its performance due to חשש תקלה. This tension is central to the sugya.
• "בבקר ובצאן, ואין מתעשרין מזה על זה; בכבשים ובעזים, ומתעשרין מזה על זה": This distinction is pivotal. Bakar and tzon (cattle and flock) are distinct categories and cannot be combined. However, kvasim and izim (sheep and goats) within the tzon category can be combined. The Mishnah immediately presents a kal vachomer to challenge this, only to be refuted by a pasuk.
• "קל וחומר... תלמוד לומר: 'וכל מעשר בקר וצאן... או הצאן' – כל הצאן אחד": This dialectical structure is classic Mishnaic pedagogy. The kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) would logically conclude that sheep and goats should not combine, given that chadash and yashan (same species, different years, no kilayim) do not. The pasuk "או הצאן" (Leviticus 27:32) is then presented as an explicit derasha that overrides human logic, teaching that all tzon (sheep and goats) are considered one species for tithing. The omission of "או הבקר" from the derasha implies that bakar and tzon remain distinct.
• "מעשר בהמה מתערב עד מהלך יום ולילה. וכמה מהלך יום ולילה? ששה עשר מיל": The concept of יתערב (to join/combine) here refers to animals from different locations being counted together to reach the quorum of ten. The limit of "sixteen mil" (a mil is approximately 1.15 km) defines the geographical extent of a single tithing group. This highlights the practical logistical considerations of the mitzvah.
• "אחים ושותפין בזמן שהן חייבין בקלבון – פטורין ממעשר בהמה. חייבין במעשר בהמה – פטורין מן הקלבון": This introduces a parallel halakha regarding kalbon (a premium on the half-shekel offering). The Mishnah draws an analogy: those who are considered distinct enough to owe kalbon (e.g., divided and re-partnered brothers) are exempt from Ma'aser Behema (implying their animals are considered separately owned, not a single flock). Conversely, those who are obligated in Ma'aser Behema (e.g., brothers who inherited and haven't divided) are exempt from kalbon (implying their property is still considered a single unit). This illustrates how halakha defines ownership and partnership for different mitzvot.

Mishnah Bekhorot 9:2

"כל הנכנסין לדיר להתעשר, חוץ מכלאים, וטרפה, ויוצא דופן, ושאין לו שמונה ימים, ויתום. ואיזהו יתום? כל שמתה אמו או נשחטה ואחר כך ילדה. ר' יהושע אומר: אפי' נשחטה אמו ועורה קיים – אינו יתום. שלשה זמנין לאסף מעשר בהמה: סמוך לפסח, וסמוך לעצרת, וסמוך לחג. ואלו הן משמרות מעשר בהמה, דברי ר' עקיבא. בן עזאי אומר: בכ"ט באדר, ובא' בסיון, ובכ"ט באב. ר' אלעזר ור' שמעון אומרים: בא' בניסן, ובא' בסיון, ובכ"ט באלול. ולמה אמרו בכ"ט באלול ולא אמרו בא' בתשרי? מפני שהוא יום טוב, ואין מעשרין ביום טוב. לפיכך הקדימוהו לכ"ט באלול. ר' מאיר אומר: ר"ה למעשר בהמה בא' באלול. בן עזאי אומר: אלול מתעשר בפני עצמו, מפני הספק. כל הנולדים מא' בתשרי ועד כ"ט באלול, הרי אלו מצטרפין. היו חמשה לפני ר"ה וחמשה אחר ר"ה – אינן מצטרפין. חמשה לפני האסיפה וחמשה אחר האסיפה – הרי אלו מצטרפין. וכי מה אסיפה נאמרה כאן? אלא שעד שלא תבא אסיפה – מותר למכור ולשחוט. באת אסיפה – אין שוחטין, ואם שחט – פטור. כיצד מעשרין? מכניסן לדיר, ועושה להם פתח קטן, שלא יצאו שנים בבת אחת. ומונה אותן במקל: אחד, שנים, שלשה, ארבעה, חמשה, ששה, שבעה, שמנה, תשעה; והיוצא עשירי – רושמו בסיקרא ואומר: 'זה מעשר'. לא רשמו בסיקרא, ולא מנה במקל, ולא מנה שוכב ועומד – אלו מתעשרין. היו לו מאה ונטל עשרה, עשרה ונטל אחד – אינו מעשר. ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר: הרי זה מעשר. קפץ אחד מן המנויין ונכנס לתוך הבלתי מנויין – כולן פטורין. קפץ אחד מן המעושרים ונכנס לתוך הבלתי מעושרים – כולן רועין עד שיסתאבו, ונאכלים במומן לבעלים. יצאו שנים כאחד – מונה אותן שנים שנים. מנה שנים באחד – התשיעי והעשירי פגומים. קרא לתשיעי עשירי, ולעשירי תשיעי, ולעשירי עשירי – שלשתן קדושין. תשיעי נאכל במומו, ועשירי מעשר, ואחד עשר קרבן שלמים, ועושה תמורה, דברי ר' מאיר. ר' יהודה אומר: וכי תמורה עושה תמורה? אמרו לו לר' מאיר: אם הוא תמורה אינו קרב. קרא לתשיעי עשירי, ולעשירי עשירי, ולאחד עשר עשירי – אחד עשר אינו קדוש. זה הכלל: כל שלא הסיח דעת מעשירי – אחד עשר אינו קדוש." [Mishnah Bekhorot 9:2]

Nuances & Dikduk

• "כל הנכנסין לדיר להתעשר, חוץ מכלאים, וטרפה, ויוצא דופן, ושאין לו שמונה ימים, ויתום": This enumerates a specific list of animals disqualified from Ma'aser Behema. Each exclusion has its own halakhic rationale (e.g., kilayim are not a true species, tereifa is inherently flawed, yotzei dofen is not considered a natural birth for sacrificial purposes, <8 days old is not fit for korban, yatom lacks a maternal connection). The definition of yatom itself is subject to Tannaitic debate.
• "שלשה זמנין לאסף מעשר בהמה": The concept of אסיפה (gathering) is distinct from Rosh Hashanah for tithing. These are specific dates when the obligation to tithe crystallizes, and after which slaughtering or selling untithed animals becomes problematic. The different Tannaitic opinions highlight various calendrical considerations and halakhic priorities (e.g., avoiding Yom Tov).
• "ר' מאיר אומר: ר"ה למעשר בהמה בא' באלול": This sets the Rosh Hashanah for Ma'aser Behema, a critical date for determining chadash and yashan. The debate over the Rosh Hashanah (1st Elul vs. 1st Tishrei) leads to Ben Azzai's halakha of tithing Elul animals separately due to safek.
• "היו חמשה לפני ר"ה וחמשה אחר ר"ה – אינן מצטרפין. חמשה לפני האסיפה וחמשה אחר האסיפה – הרי אלו מצטרפין": This clarifies the distinction between Rosh Hashanah and gathering times. Rosh Hashanah creates a definitive break for combining animals, while gathering times do not. This reinforces that Rosh Hashanah defines the year for tithing, whereas gathering times are merely procedural deadlines.
• "כיצד מעשרין? מכניסן לדיר, ועושה להם פתח קטן... ומונה אותן במקל... והיוצא עשירי – רושמו בסיקרא ואומר: 'זה מעשר'": This describes the ideal l'chatchila procedure. The "small opening" ensures כל אשר יעבור תחת השבט (Lev. 27:32), i.e., passing one by one. The "rod" and "red paint" are symbolic and practical elements.
• "לא רשמו בסיקרא, ולא מנה במקל, ולא מנה שוכב ועומד – אלו מתעשרין": This is a crucial bedi'avad (post-facto) ruling. While the ideal procedure involves the rod and paint, and animals passing through, their absence or deviation does not invalidate the tithing. The kedusha still takes effect, indicating the essential elements are the counting and designation, not necessarily the ritualistic accouterments.
• "היו לו מאה ונטל עשרה, עשרה ונטל אחד – אינו מעשר. ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר: הרי זה מעשר": This debate highlights whether the act of counting (one by one, up to ten) is an indispensable part of the mitzvah or if the designation of the tenth by number is sufficient. The Sages hold the specific counting procedure is essential l'chatchila and even bedi'avad, while R' Yosei b'R' Yehuda deems the numerical outcome sufficient.
• "קרא לתשיעי עשירי, ולעשירי תשיעי, ולעשירי עשירי – שלשתן קדושין... ועושה תמורה, דברי ר' מאיר. ר' יהודה אומר: וכי תמורה עושה תמורה?": This complex scenario explores errors in designation. R' Meir's opinion that the eleventh animal, when misdesignated as a tenth, can become a korban Shelamim and even generate temurah (substitute) is challenged by R' Yehuda. The halakha of temurah (Lev. 27:10) states that a substitute for a korban also becomes kodesh, but a substitute cannot generate a further substitute. R' Yehuda's kushya suggests R' Meir's opinion might contradict this fundamental principle. The Sages then clarify R' Meir's position, stating that if it were truly a temurah for Ma'aser Behema, it would not be sacrificed. This delves into the subtle distinctions of kedusha and temurah.

Readings

The Mishnah's succinct statements often conceal layers of derashot, svarot, and takkanot. The Rishonim and Acharonim illuminate these depths, revealing the intricate logical framework of Ma'aser Behema.

Rambam: Clarifying Scope and Rabbinic Authority

Rambam, in his commentary to the Mishnah and later in Hilkhot Bekhorot, provides a foundational understanding of Ma'aser Behema. He addresses the Mishnah's opening statement: "מעשר בהמה נוהג בארץ ובחוצה לארץ כו': כבר זכרנו פעמים רבות שהמעשר בהמה מקריבין ממנו חלבו ודמו ואוכלין אותו הבעלים בירושלים ואם אירע בו מום יאכל בטומאה בכל מקום. ומה שאמר בכאן שהוא נוהג בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית הוא דין תורה אבל משום תקלה אמרו אינו נוהג אלא בפני הבית גזירה שמא לא יהא שם מקדש ויאכל חוצה לארץ בלא מום." (Mishnah Bekhorot 9:1:1 s.v. מעשר בהמה נוהג בארץ).

Rabbinic Suspension of a De'Oraita Mitzvah

Rambam's primary chiddush here is his clear distinction between the De'Oraita (Torah) law and the De'Rabbanan (Rabbinic) takkanah. The Torah, he asserts, indeed mandates Ma'aser Behema even shelo bifnei haBayit (not in the presence of the Temple). However, Chazal (the Sages) instituted a gezeirah (Rabbinic decree) that it should not be practiced shelo bifnei haBayit. The rationale for this gezeirah is misum takkala – "due to a pitfall" or "stumbling block." The concern is that without the Beit HaMikdash, the Ma'aser Behema cannot be properly sacrificed in Jerusalem. If it develops a mum (blemish), it can be eaten by the owner b'mumo (in its blemished state) in any place, even b'tumah (in ritual impurity). The takkalah arises if the Ma'aser Behema is tithed shelo bifnei haBayit and remains tamim (unblemished) but cannot be brought to Jerusalem for sacrifice. If the owner were to then eat it chutz la'aretz b'lo mum, it would constitute a severe transgression (eating kodshim outside their designated place and without sacrifice). To prevent this potential takkalah, the Rabbis decreed that the mitzvah should not be performed at all when the Temple is not standing. This is a profound example of Rabbinic authority to "suspend" a De'Oraita obligation through a shev v'al ta'aseh (a passive non-act) to safeguard against a more severe transgression.

Exclusion of Kodshim

Rambam further clarifies: "ומ"ש אבל לא במוקדשין ואפי' היו קדשים קלים ואפי' על דעת האומרים קדשים קלים ממון בעלים הוא." (Mishnah Bekhorot 9:1:1 s.v. אבל לא במוקדשין). The Mishnah states that Ma'aser Behema applies to tehorim (non-sacred animals) but not to mukdashin (sacred animals). Rambam emphasizes that this exclusion applies even to kodshim kalim (lesser sacrifices), such as shelamim (peace offerings). This is significant because kodshim kalim are considered mamon ba'alim (the property of the owners) to a certain extent, meaning the owner has rights to consume parts of the animal. One might think that since the owners retain ownership rights, such animals could still be subject to ma'aser. However, Rambam asserts they are not. The underlying principle is that an animal already consecrated for one purpose cannot be consecrated again for another. Kedusha is a singular state; an animal cannot be kodesh for shelamim and simultaneously for ma'aser. The pasuk "והעשירי יהיה קדש" implies a transition from chullin (non-sacred) to kodesh, which cannot occur if the animal is already kodesh.

The "New and Old" Distinction

Regarding "חדש הוא הנולד באותה שנה וישן הוא הנולד בשנה שלפניה אמר רחמנא עשר תעשר וגו' אמרו בשני מעשרות הכתוב מדבר אחד מעשר בהמה ואחד מעשר דגן וכמו שמעשר דגן אין מעשרין מן הישן על החדש ולא מן החדש על הישן לפי שנאמר היוצא השדה שנה שנה כך מעשר בהמה לא יהא אלא שנה שנה ר"ל אין מעשרין משנה לחברתה." (Mishnah Bekhorot 9:1:1 s.v. וחדש הוא הנולד). Rambam explains that chadash refers to animals born in the current tithing year, and yashan to those from the previous year. The Mishnah states that these cannot be tithed from one another. Rambam justifies this through an hekkesh (analogy) to Ma'aser Dagan. The Torah states concerning Ma'aser Dagan, "תבואת זרעך היוצא השדה שנה שנה" (Deuteronomy 14:22), meaning grain tithes are separated year by year. The Rabbis derived that this "year by year" principle applies to Ma'aser Behema as well. Just as one cannot tithe old grain on new grain (or vice versa), so too one cannot tithe old animals on new animals. This highlights the concept of distinct halakhic years for tithing purposes, reinforcing the idea that kedusha is tied to specific temporal cycles.

Tosafot Yom Tov: Context, Derashot, and Rabbinic Authority

Tosafot Yom Tov, a seminal commentary on the Mishnah, offers further insights, often referencing Gemara and other Rishonim.

Grouping of Bekhor, Ma'aser, and Pesach

"מעשר בהמה כו' . בכל מקום רגיל להזכיר בכור ומעשר ופסח ששוין במתנותיהן [כדתנן ספ"ה דזבחים] להכי תני מעשר אגב בכור. ופסח דנפישי מיליה תנא בפסחים. תוס':" (Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Bekhorot 9:1:1 s.v. מעשר בהמה). Tosafot Yom Tov notes that Ma'aser Behema is often grouped with Bekhor (firstborn animal) and Pesach (Paschal lamb). He explains that these three share similarities in their matanot (gifts/laws), as stated in Zevachim 5:5. The Mishnah in Bekhorot dedicates a separate tractate to Bekhor and includes Ma'aser Behema here, while Pesach is discussed in Masekhet Pesachim. This grouping suggests a thematic connection between these korbanot that arise from animal husbandry, highlighting their shared characteristics and distinct laws.

The Nuance of "נוהג בארץ ובח"ל"

"נוהג בארץ ובח"ל . כתבו התוס' דהכא לצורך הוא. ולא פירשו למה ונראה משום דבגמ' לימא מתני' דלא כר"ע דתניא ר"ע אומר יכול יעלה אדם מעשר בהמה מח"ל ויקריבנו ת"ל (דברים י״ב:ה׳-ו׳) והבאתם שמה וגו' ואת מעשרותיכם בשתי מעשרות הכתוב מדבר כו' אפי' תימא ר"ע. כאן ליקרב דלא. כאן לקדש ולאכול במומו לבעלים דיקא נמי דקא נסיב לה תלמודא. והבאתם שמה [דהיינו הקרבה] ש"מ והשתא אי דלא כר"ע אצטריך. ואי כר' עקיבא נמי אצטריך דקדיש מיהא [לאכול במומו]. והרמב"ם בפ"ו מהלכות בכורות. העתיק המשנה כלשונה ויראה דס"ל דלא כר"ע:" (Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Bekhorot 9:1:2 s.v. נוהג בארץ ובח"ל). Tosafot Yom Tov discusses the phrase "נוהג בארץ ובחוצה לארץ" (applies in Eretz Yisrael and outside). He refers to Tosafot (Bekhorot 33a) who state this is "לצורך" (necessary). He then explains the necessity by referencing a Gemara discussion: The Mishnah's statement could be seen as disagreeing with R' Akiva, who holds that Ma'aser Behema cannot be brought from Chutz La'aretz for sacrifice, based on the pasuk "והבאתם שמה... ואת מעשרותיכם" (Deuteronomy 12:5-6), which implies bringing tithes from the land to the chosen place. The Gemara concludes that even according to R' Akiva, the Mishnah's statement is necessary. Why? Because while Ma'aser Behema from Chutz La'aretz cannot be sacrificed (לקרב דלא), it does become kodesh (לקדש) and can be eaten by the owner b'mumo (in its blemished state). Therefore, the Mishnah teaches that the kedusha of Ma'aser Behema applies even in Chutz La'aretz, even if the full sacrificial process cannot be completed. This highlights a subtle but crucial distinction: the mitzvah to designate the tenth animal as kodesh is distinct from the mitzvah to sacrifice it. The former applies everywhere, while the latter is geographically restricted. Tosafot Yom Tov further notes that Rambam's psak in Hilkhot Bekhorot aligns with the Mishnah's literal reading, suggesting Rambam may not follow R' Akiva's stricter interpretation on this point.

The Rabbinic Suspension – A Deeper Look

"ושלא בפני הבית . כתב הר"ב והאידנא אמור רבנן דלא לפרשו מעשר בהמה משום תקלה כו' דבשב ואל תעשה מצי למיעקר ד"ת כמ"ש ברפ"י דיבמות ועוד דאין איסור אכילה קודם עישור. אלא חכמים קבעו זמן. כדלקמן משנה ו'. ועיין לשון רש"י שהעתקתי ברפ"ג דשקלים. ובגמרא בכור נמי לקנינהו לאודנייהו לנכרי דלא ליקדש מעיקרא. ומסקי התוס' בפ"ק דף ג' דאה"נ דלדידן מצוה להשתתף עם הנכרי כו' קודם שיצא לאויר העולם. כדי לפטרו מן הבכורה וכדמסיק בטור סי' ש"ך:" (Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Bekhorot 9:1:3 s.v. ושלא בפני הבית). Tosafot Yom Tov expands on the Rabbinic takkanah not to perform Ma'aser Behema shelo bifnei haBayit. He cites the principle שב ואל תעשה מצי למיעקר ד"ת (a Rabbinic shev v'al ta'aseh can uproot a Torah law). This is a significant legal tool that allows Chazal to prevent the performance of a De'Oraita positive commandment in specific circumstances to avoid a greater takkalah. He also notes, "אין איסור אכילה קודם עישור" (there is no prohibition of eating prior to tithing), which means the issur only applies after the animal becomes ma'aser. Therefore, the takkanah is not about eating something prohibited, but about creating something that will inevitably lead to a prohibition if the Temple is not present. This is a powerful illustration of the proactive nature of Rabbinic gezeirot. He then makes a fascinating parallel to Bekhorah (firstborn animal). In Bekhorah, to avoid the kedusha of the firstborn (which today cannot be offered), Chazal permitted partnership with a nochri (non-Jew) before the animal is born, such that it is not considered solely Jewish-owned and thus exempt from bekhorah. This proactive measure (making the animal chullin from the outset) is stronger than the shev v'al ta'aseh for Ma'aser Behema, as it prevents the kedusha from ever taking effect. This comparison highlights different Rabbinic strategies for managing mitzvot that are currently impractical.

Combining Sheep and Goats

"ומתעשרין מזה על זה . כתב הר"ב מדרבי רחמנא וצאן דמשמע כל צאן מין אחד. ששניהם נקראים שה. הרמב"ם פ"ז מה"ב. וכדכתב הר"ב בפ"ק משנה ד':" (Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Bekhorot 9:1:4 s.v. ומתעשרין מזה על זה). Tosafot Yom Tov explains the Mishnah's conclusion that sheep and goats do combine for tithing. He references the derasha from "או הצאן" (Leviticus 27:32), which implies that all tzon (sheep and goats) are considered a single species for this mitzvah. He notes that both sheep and goats are commonly referred to as seh (lamb/kid), reinforcing their linguistic and halakhic unity in this context. He points to Rambam (Hilkhot Bekhorot 7) as well as his own earlier commentary on Bekhorot 1:4. This reinforces the idea that specific derashot can override what might seem to be logical distinctions (e.g., kilayim).

The Hekkesh to Ma'aser Dagan and its Challenges

"ואין מתעשרין כו' . כתב הר"ב מה מעשר דגן כו' דהא כתיב שנה שנה שכן נאמר (שם י"ד) תבואת זרעך היוצא השדה שנה שנה. וכן הוא בסוגיא [דף נ"ג ע"ב] ולעיל ברפ"ק דר"ה לא דקדק הר"ב בזה. וכתבו התוס' [דף ל"ג]. דהכא אתי הקישא ומפיק מק"ו ולעיל בפ"ה מ"ב אמרינן אפכא. הכא לא מתוקם הקישא דאע"ג דלר"י בר"י בפרקין משנה ז'. מתוקם בניטל באומד כו'. עיקר הקישא דשנה שנה לא מתוקמא]:" (Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Bekhorot 9:1:6 s.v. ואין מתעשרין כו'). Regarding the non-combination of chadash and yashan, Tosafot Yom Tov reiterates the hekkesh to Ma'aser Dagan via the "שנה שנה" (year by year) phrase in Deuteronomy 14:22. He points out a potential difficulty raised by Tosafot (Bekhorot 33a) regarding the interplay of hekkesh and kal vachomer. The Mishnah presents a kal vachomer that implies chadash and yashan should combine (because they are not kilayim), yet concludes they do not. The hekkesh from Ma'aser Dagan overrides this kal vachomer. Tosafot Yom Tov references a passage in Rosh Hashanah (1:1) where this hekkesh might be interpreted differently. He highlights that in the context of Bekhorot, the hekkesh is primary and overrides the kal vachomer, even if it seems counter-intuitive. This demonstrates the hierarchy of derashot and how a specific pasuk or hekkesh can take precedence over a logical deduction.

Tosafot Rabbi Akiva Eiger: Precision in Derasha

Tosafot Rabbi Akiva Eiger is known for his incisive textual analysis and pinpointing subtle difficulties and solutions.

The Derasha for "All Flock Is One"

"[אות לז] במשנה משמע כל צאן אחד. היינו דלא לכתוב בקר וצאן ולכתוב וכל מעשר בהמה והוי ידעינן מזה על זה מק"ו דחדש וישן. אע"כ דבא לרבות דכל צאן אחד. והא דאין מעשרין מבקר על צאן ולא אמרי' בקר וצאן דבא לרבות ולערב דהכל אחד (ואי מק"ו דחדש וישן נימא דכבשים ועזים יוכיחו) דלענין זה ילפינן מהיקישא דמעשר דגן. דאין מעשרין מזה על זה. גמרא:" (Tosafot Rabbi Akiva Eiger on Mishnah Bekhorot 9:1:1 s.v. במשנה משמע). R' Akiva Eiger delves into the derasha "או הצאן – כל הצאן אחד." He explains that the very wording of the pasuk (Leviticus 27:32) is crucial. If the Torah had simply said "כל מעשר בהמה" (all animal tithe) without specifying "בקר וצאן," one might have inferred from the kal vachomer (from chadash v'yashan) that different animal types do not combine. However, by specifically writing "בקר וצאן" and then immediately following with "או הצאן," the pasuk creates a deliberate redundancy that teaches a specific chiddush. The "או הצאן" (or the flock) specifically means to include all types within the flock as one, overriding the kal vachomer. He then raises a kushya: If the pasuk "בקר וצאן... או הצאן" teaches unity for tzon, why doesn't it teach unity for bakar and tzon together, implying "הכל אחד" (all are one)? R' Akiva Eiger answers that for bakar and tzon, we don't say they combine. Instead, for this distinction, we learn from the hekkesh to Ma'aser Dagan that different types of produce (or, by extension, different species of animals like cattle and flock) do not combine. This intricate analysis highlights how Chazal carefully select which derasha to apply based on the specific wording and context of the pesukim, and how different derashot (e.g., pasuk, kal vachomer, hekkesh) operate in a hierarchical and sometimes counter-intuitive manner to establish halakha. The pasuk is strong enough to declare sheep and goats as one despite their kilayim distinction, but not strong enough to declare cattle and flock as one against the general principle of hekkesh from Ma'aser Dagan.

Friction

The Mishnah presents several points of tension and logical challenge, which are then resolved through precise derashot or Rabbinic takkanot. Two prominent examples are the Rabbinic suspension of Ma'aser Behema today and the intricate logic behind combining different animal types.

Kushya 1: The Enigma of "שלא בפני הבית" and the Rabbinic Suspension of a De'Oraita Mitzvah

The Mishnah unequivocally states: "מעשר בהמה נוהג בארץ ובחוצה לארץ, בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית" (M. Bekhorot 9:1). This implies that Ma'aser Behema is a De'Oraita (Torah) obligation that applies even in the absence of the Beit HaMikdash. Yet, as Rambam and Tosafot Yom Tov explain, Chazal instituted a takkanah that Ma'aser Behema is not practiced today.

The Kushya

How can Chazal suspend a De'Oraita mitzvah? The authority of Chazal is great, but it has limits. We are taught principles like אין בית דין יכול לבטל דברי בית דין חבירו אלא אם כן גדול ממנו בחכמה ובמניין (M. Eduyot 1:5) concerning one Beit Din overruling another. Furthermore, כל דברים שבקדושה אין חכמים רשאין לעקרן (Megillah 2a) suggests that Chazal cannot simply annul mitzvot related to kedusha. Here, we have a mitzvah of kedusha (designating an animal as holy) that is seemingly "uprooted" by Rabbinic decree. This appears to be a direct contradiction to the Mishnah's statement that it נוהג (is in effect). If it is נוהג, how can we not perform it? This isn't merely a matter of doubt where safek de'Oraita l'chumra might apply, but a clear Rabbinic prohibition on performing a De'Oraita positive commandment.

Terutz 1: The Principle of "שב ואל תעשה מצי למיעקר ד"ת"

The primary terutz (resolution) offered by Tosafot Yom Tov (on M. Bekhorot 9:1:3, citing earlier Tosafot) is the principle of שב ואל תעשה מצי למיעקר ד"ת (a Rabbinic shev v'al ta'aseh can uproot a Torah law).

• Elaboration: This principle asserts that Chazal have the authority to prevent the performance of a De'Oraita positive commandment if its performance would lead to a more severe transgression or a significant takkalah. The key is "שב ואל תעשה" – "sit and do not do." It is a passive non-performance, not an active lav (prohibition) that directly contradicts the De'Oraita mitzvah. For example, Chazal decreed that shofar should not be blown on Rosh Hashanah when it falls on Shabbat (M. Rosh Hashanah 29b). The Torah commands blowing shofar on Rosh Hashanah, but Chazal prevented it due to the takkalah of potentially carrying the shofar in a reshut harabbim (public domain). This is a shev v'al ta'aseh that uproots a De'Oraita mitzvah.
• Application to Ma'aser Behema: In our case, the takkalah is the risk that an untithed Ma'aser Behema (which is kodesh) would be eaten chutz la'aretz b'lo mum (outside Jerusalem without a blemish), a severe issur. Since the Beit HaMikdash is not standing, the animal cannot be sacrificed in its proper place. If it remains unblemished, it becomes a problematic kodesh object. To prevent this, Chazal decreed not to tithe. This is a passive non-action (abstaining from tithing) which prevents the creation of a kodesh that cannot be properly handled, thereby averting the De'Oraita transgression of improper consumption.
• Boundaries of the Principle: This principle is not boundless. It typically applies when there is a chashash de'Oraita (concern for a Torah prohibition) or a safek de'Oraita (doubt regarding a Torah prohibition) that arises from the performance of the positive mitzvah. It is a defensive measure to safeguard the integrity of Halakha. The takkalah must be significant and directly linked to the mitzvah's performance.

Terutz 2: Rambam's Nuance – Preventing the Creation of Problematic Kedusha

Rambam's explanation (Mishnah Bekhorot 9:1:1 s.v. מעשר בהמה נוהג בארץ) implies a slightly different emphasis, though fundamentally aligned with the shev v'al ta'aseh principle.

• Elaboration: Rambam frames the takkanah as a gezeirah "שמא לא יהא שם מקדש ויאכל חוצה לארץ בלא מום" (lest there be no Temple and it be eaten outside the land without a blemish). His emphasis is on the creation of the kedusha itself. If the kedusha cannot be fulfilled (by bringing it to the Temple for sacrifice), then Chazal prevent its inception. The mitzvah of tithing is intended to designate an animal for a specific sacred purpose. If that purpose cannot be achieved, and its designation might lead to transgression, then the Rabbinic decree halts the process at its preliminary stage.
• Distinction from Terutz 1: While Terutz 1 focuses on the passive nature of the non-performance, Rambam's approach highlights that the mitzvah itself becomes impractical or counterproductive under current conditions. The kedusha of Ma'aser Behema is intrinsically linked to its sacrificial purpose. If the sacrificial purpose is unattainable, the kedusha it generates is an "incomplete" or "problematic" kedusha. Chazal are not abolishing the mitzvah but rather acknowledging that its proper fulfillment is currently impossible and therefore preventing the potential for desecration. This aligns with the idea that Chazal "קבעו זמן" (set times) for tithing (M. Bekhorot 9:6) – they have authority over the practical implementation and timing of mitzvot. If a mitzvah requires specific conditions for its proper performance (like a standing Temple), and those conditions are absent, Chazal can regulate its practice.

Terutz 3: Impracticability of Kedusha in Exile

An alternative perspective, which can complement the previous terutzim, focuses on the inherent limitations of kedusha in exile.

• Elaboration: Perhaps the issur of eating Ma'aser Behema chutz l'Yerushalayim (outside Jerusalem) is De'Oraita, and it's also De'Oraita that Ma'aser Behema can only be sacrificed when the Beit HaMikdash is standing. If so, then when the Temple is destroyed, the very possibility of properly fulfilling the mitzvah is removed. It's not just a Rabbinic gezeirah to prevent takkalah, but a recognition that the mitzvah cannot truly exist in its full form without its essential components. The kedusha of Ma'aser Behema is kedushat haguf (inherent sanctity), but this sanctity is contingent on the ability to be offered on the mizbeiach. Without the mizbeiach, the kedusha is, in a sense, "dormant" or "unrealizable." Therefore, Chazal are not suspending a De'Oraita per se, but declaring that the conditions for the mitzvah's actualization are absent. This view implies that the Mishnah's "נוהג... ושלא בפני הבית" refers to its potential or theoretical applicability, but its practical performance is contingent on the Temple. This allows for the theoretical De'Oraita status to remain while acknowledging practical limitations.

Kushya 2: The Logic of Combining (or not) and the Interplay of Derashot

The Mishnah presents a series of rules regarding which animals can be combined for tithing:

• "בבקר ובצאן, ואין מתעשרין מזה על זה" (Cattle and flock do not combine).
• "בכבשים ובעזים, ומתעשרין מזה על זה" (Sheep and goats do combine).
• "בחדש ובישן, ואין מתעשרין מזה על זה" (New and old do not combine).
• It then presents a kal vachomer: "קל וחומר בחדש ובישן, שאינן עושין כלאים זה בזה, אינן מתעשרין מזה על זה, כבשים ועזים, שעושין כלאים זה בזה, אינו דין שלא יתעשרו מזה על זה?" (If new and old, which do not produce kilayim, do not combine, then sheep and goats, which do produce kilayim, surely should not combine?).
• This kal vachomer is immediately refuted by a pasuk: "תלמוד לומר: 'וכל מעשר בקר וצאן... או הצאן' – כל הצאן אחד." (Therefore the verse states... 'or the flock' – all flock is one).

The Kushya

This sequence of statements creates several logical challenges:

1. The Flimsy Kal Vachomer: Why does the Mishnah present a kal vachomer that it immediately refutes? Is the kal vachomer merely a pedagogical device, or does it hold some halakhic weight before the pasuk overrides it? If the pasuk is definitive, why bother with the kal vachomer at all?
2. Inconsistency in Combination Rules: If כבשים ועזים combine due to the derasha from "או הצאן," why do בקר וצאן (cattle and flock) not combine, given that the same foundational pasuk (Leviticus 27:32) mentions "כל מעשר בקר וצאן"? Why is "או הצאן" interpreted to mean "all tzon is one" but "בקר וצאן" not interpreted to mean "all bakar and tzon are one"? What is the precise linguistic trigger for the derasha?
3. The Kilayim Factor: The kal vachomer emphasizes that sheep and goats do produce kilayim (hybrids). This suggests they are distinct species. Yet the pasuk forces them into a single category for tithing. This seems to override a fundamental biological/halakhic distinction. How do we reconcile this?

Terutz 1: Demonstrating the Power of Derasha (Tosafot R' Akiva Eiger / Gemara Bekhorot 33a)

This terutz focuses on the Mishnah's didactic intent and the hierarchy of derashot.

• Elaboration: The kal vachomer is indeed presented as a logical deduction that one would have made based on the principle of chadash v'yashan. The principle is that categories that are distinct (even temporally) do not combine. From this, one might logically extend that distinct species, especially those that produce kilayim, also do not combine. The Mishnah presents this kal vachomer precisely to show its force and then demonstrates how a specific pasuk can override even such a compelling logical argument. It teaches us that derashot from pesukim are paramount; they are not mere supports for human logic but can establish halakhot that defy intuition.
• Addressing Inconsistency: For bakar v'tzon, the specific derasha of "או הצאן" (meaning all flock is one) does not extend to include bakar. The pasuk strategically used "או הצאן" to highlight the unity within the flock, not to merge bakar and tzon. For bakar v'tzon, the default rule applies, which is derived from an hekkesh to Ma'aser Dagan (Deuteronomy 14:22, "שנה שנה"). Just as different types of grain do not combine, different species of animals (cattle and flock) do not combine. This demonstrates that derashot are highly specific and context-dependent. A pasuk might teach unity for one category but not another, and different derashot (e.g., gezeira shava, hekkesh, specific wordings) are used to establish different halakhot.
• Addressing Kilayim: The fact that sheep and goats produce kilayim indicates they are distinct species in general halakha. However, for the specific mitzvah of Ma'aser Behema, the pasuk "או הצאן" explicitly declares them to be one. This is a chiddush (novelty) of the Torah, overriding the general rule derived from kilayim. The Torah itself can create exceptions or specific definitions for various mitzvot. For Ma'aser Behema, the Torah views "flock" as a monolithic unit, regardless of internal species distinctions like sheep and goats.

Terutz 2: Linguistic and Categorical Unity (Rambam's Implied Approach)

Rambam's commentary (Mishnah Bekhorot 9:1:4 s.v. ומתעשרין מזה על זה) emphasizes that sheep and goats שניהם נקראים שה (both are called seh).

• Elaboration: This suggests that the derasha from "או הצאן" is not just an arbitrary decree but is rooted in a linguistic and conceptual unity. Both sheep and goats fall under the general Hebrew term seh (lamb/kid), and therefore, the Torah can group them as "צאן" for tithing. This linguistic unity supports the halakhic unity. For bakar and tzon, such linguistic unity is absent; they are distinct categories in common parlance and in Torah terminology.
• Addressing Inconsistency: The hekkesh to Ma'aser Dagan then serves as the default rule for categories that are clearly distinct, whether temporally (chadash v'yashan) or by species (bakar v'tzon). The special pasuk "או הצאן" acts as a specific override for the tzon category due to its underlying unity (both being called seh). Without such an explicit override, the general principle of non-combination for distinct categories holds.

Terutz 3: The Primacy of the Pasuk as a Chiddush (Netziv, Ha'amek She'alah)

Building on the idea of specific derashot as chiddushim, the Netziv (R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin) and others explore this further.

• Elaboration: The kal vachomer from chadash v'yashan correctly identifies a general halakhic principle: distinctions, even temporal ones, usually prevent combination. The fact that chadash v'yashan (same species, no kilayim) don't combine strengthens the a fortiori argument that כבשים ועזים (different species, kilayim) should certainly not combine. The pasuk "או הצאן" is therefore a chiddush gamur (a complete novelty) of the Torah. It intentionally creates an exception for sheep and goats, grouping them despite their biological differences and kilayim status. It is a unique legislative act of the Torah for Ma'aser Behema.
• Why not bakar v'tzon? For bakar v'tzon, the Torah did not make such a chiddush. The general rule (derived from Ma'aser Dagan) that distinct categories do not combine thus remains in effect. The pasuk "בקר וצאן" in Leviticus 27:32 simply lists the categories of animals subject to ma'aser, not necessarily implying they combine. The explicit "או הצאן" is the specific derasha for combination within the flock, making it clear that this unity is limited to tzon and does not extend to bakar and tzon together. This perspective emphasizes that every word and grammatical structure in the Torah is precise and teaches a specific halakha, sometimes overriding what seems like logical consistency.

Intertext

The laws of Ma'aser Behema are deeply interwoven with other mitzvot and sugyot throughout Tanakh, Shas, and beyond. Examining these intertextual connections enriches our understanding of the Mishnah.

Tanakh: The Bedrock of Ma'aser Behema

1. Leviticus 27:32-33 – The Core Mitzvah:

   • "וְכָל מַעְשַׂר בָּקָר וָצֹאן כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה קֹדֶשׁ לַה'. לֹא יְבַקֵּר בֵּין טוֹב לָרַע וְלֹא יָמִירֶנּוּ וְאִם הָמֵר יְמִירֶנּוּ וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קֹדֶשׁ לֹא יִגָּאֵל."
   • This pasuk is the foundational source for Ma'aser Behema. The phrase "כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט" informs the Mishnah's detailed procedure of passing animals through a narrow opening and counting with a rod (M. Bekhorot 9:2). The explicit mention of "בָּקָר וָצֹאן" sets the general categories, while the later "או הצאן" is the derasha used to establish that sheep and goats combine, overriding the kal vachomer from kilayim. The subsequent verse (27:33) introduces the law of temurah (substitution), which is directly addressed in the Mishnah's complex scenario of miscounting (M. Bekhorot 9:2, "ועושה תמורה... וכי תמורה עושה תמורה?"). This demonstrates how the Mishnah unpacks and applies the nuances embedded in the Torah's words.

2. Deuteronomy 12:5-6 – Geographic Restriction and R' Akiva's View:

   • "כִּי אִם אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם מִכָּל שִׁבְטֵיכֶם לָשׂוּם אֶת שְׁמוֹ שָׁם לְשִׁכְנוֹ תִדְרְשׁוּ וּבָאתָ שָׁמָּה. וַהֲבֵאתֶם שָׁמָּה אֶת עֹלֹתֵיכֶם וְאֶת זִבְחֵיכֶם וְאֵת מַעְשְׂרֹתֵיכֶם..."
   • These verses establish that offerings, including tithes, must be brought to the chosen place (Jerusalem). This is the basis for R' Akiva's view (cited in Bekhorot 33a) that Ma'aser Behema from Chutz La'aretz cannot be sacrificed in Jerusalem, even if it attains kedusha there. The Gemara uses "והבאתם שמה... ואת מעשרותיכם" to limit the sacrificial aspect. This provides the context for the Tosafot Yom Tov's discussion on the Mishnah's statement "נוהג בארץ ובחוצה לארץ," explaining that while the kedusha applies, the korban aspect might be restricted.

3. Deuteronomy 14:22 – The Hekkesh to Ma'aser Dagan:

   • "עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר אֵת כָּל תְּבוּאַת זַרְעֶךָ הַיֹּצֵא הַשָּׂדֶה שָׁנָה שָׁנָה."
   • This pasuk mandates tithing agricultural produce "שנה שנה" (year by year). Chazal derive an hekkesh from Ma'aser Dagan to Ma'aser Behema (Bekhorot 33a, 53b), concluding that animals from different years ("חדש ובישן") cannot be tithed from one another (M. Bekhorot 9:1). This also forms the basis for the inability to combine bakar and tzon. The underlying principle is that kedusha operates within defined temporal and categorical boundaries, unless explicitly overridden by another derasha.

Sifra: Elaboration on the Mitzvah

• Sifra Bechukotai, Perek 7:1-2: The Sifra, the Tannaitic Midrash on Leviticus, provides a foundational interpretation of Ma'aser Behema. It explains the details of "תחת השבט" and the counting procedure. For instance, it specifies that only animals that pass under the rod are tithed, implying a visual and active process, supporting the Mishnah's l'chatchila instruction for a narrow opening. The Sifra also delves into the categories of animals included and excluded, laying the groundwork for the Mishnaic discussion on kilayim, tereifa, and other disqualifying factors. It reinforces that the method of tithing is not arbitrary but derived directly from the pasuk.

Talmud Bavli: The Gemara's Dialectic

1. Bekhorot 33a – R' Akiva, Kal Vachomer, and Hekkesh:

   • This sugya is a direct commentary on M. Bekhorot 9:1. It thoroughly discusses R' Akiva's view regarding Ma'aser Behema from Chutz La'aretz and reconciles it with the Mishnah. More significantly, it unpacks the kal vachomer regarding sheep and goats and its refutation by "או הצאן." The Gemara explains that the kal vachomer is a valid logical argument, but the pasuk is a chiddush that overrides it. It also solidifies the hekkesh between Ma'aser Behema and Ma'aser Dagan for the "שנה שנה" principle, explaining why bakar and tzon, and chadash and yashan, do not combine. This Gemara is indispensable for understanding the Mishnah's intricate logical structure and the hierarchy of derashot.

2. Bekhorot 53b – Defining "New" and "Old":

   • This sugya further elaborates on the distinction between chadash and yashan and the Rosh Hashanah for Ma'aser Behema. It discusses the various Tannaitic opinions regarding the dates (1st Elul, 1st Tishrei) and the practical implications for combining animals (M. Bekhorot 9:2). The Gemara provides the derasha from Ma'aser Dagan for this distinction, as mentioned by Rambam and Tosafot Yom Tov. It clarifies that the Rosh Hashanah for animal tithe is not merely a fiscal year but a halakhic demarcation that prevents inter-year combination for kedusha.

3. Rosh Hashanah 1:1 – Rosh Hashanah for Ma'aser Behema:

   • "ארבעה ראשי שנים הם... באחד באלול ראש השנה למעשר בהמה, דברי רבי מאיר. רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון אומרים: באחד בתשרי."
   • This Mishnah explicitly lists the Rosh Hashanah for Ma'aser Behema as either 1st of Elul (R' Meir) or 1st of Tishrei (R' Elazar and R' Shimon). This directly informs the debate in M. Bekhorot 9:2 about chadash and yashan, and Ben Azzai's safek regarding animals born in Elul. This connection highlights how calendar-based halakhot are established and their impact on practical observance.

Responsa Literature: Contemporary Implications

• The Takkanah of Non-Tithing Today: The Rabbinic takkanah not to perform Ma'aser Behema today (due to חשש תקלה and שב ואל תעשה) is a recurring theme in poskim.
  • Chasam Sofer (Yoreh De'ah 236): Discusses the nature of this takkanah and its authority. He often grapples with the tension between De'Oraita obligations and Rabbinic safeguards, reinforcing that such takkanot are not light matters but are rooted in profound halakhic reasoning, aimed at preventing even more severe transgressions or desecrations of kedusha. He might consider whether such a takkanah could theoretically be overturned if the circumstances (e.g., proximity to Temple rebuilding) changed.
  • Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 1:144): While not specifically on Ma'aser Behema, Rav Moshe frequently addresses the scope and application of Rabbinic takkanot that impact De'Oraita laws. His approach generally emphasizes the enduring validity of Chazal's decrees until a new Beit Din greater in wisdom and number explicitly revokes them. He would likely affirm that the takkanah on Ma'aser Behema remains fully in force, as the underlying takkalah (improper handling of kodshim without a Temple) persists. This demonstrates a meta-psak heuristic: Rabbinic decrees are binding and not easily set aside, even for De'Oraita mitzvot, when they serve a critical protective function.
• Parallels to Terumot U'Ma'aserot Today: The discussion of Ma'aser Behema in Chutz La'aretz and shelo bifnei haBayit draws parallels to the laws of Terumot U'Ma'aserot (agricultural tithes) today. While Terumot U'Ma'aserot are De'Oraita in Eretz Yisrael, their application today (without a functioning Beit HaMikdash and Kohanim/Levi'im in their full roles) also involves Rabbinic takkanot. For example, Ma'aser Sheni today is redeemed on a coin because it cannot be eaten in Jerusalem. This shows a consistent Rabbinic approach to managing mitzvot related to kedusha and the Temple in the absence of ideal conditions, opting for a modified observance or suspension to prevent desecration.

Psak/Practice

The sugya of Ma'aser Behema in Mishnah Bekhorot 9:1-2, particularly the opening lines, leads to a clear and enduring psak (halakhic ruling) with significant implications for practice today and for understanding meta-psak heuristics.

The Overriding Takkanah

The most immediate and critical practical outcome is that animal tithe is not practiced today. While the Mishnah states "מעשר בהמה נוהג בארץ ובחוצה לארץ, בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית" (M. Bekhorot 9:1), implying a De'Oraita obligation even without the Temple, Chazal instituted a takkanah (Rabbinic decree) to suspend its observance.

• Reason for Suspension: As explained by Rambam (Mishnah Bekhorot 9:1:1) and Tosafot Yom Tov (Mishnah Bekhorot 9:1:3), the takkanah is משום תקלה (due to a potential stumbling block/transgression). The concern is that if Ma'aser Behema were designated today, it would become kodesh (sacred). However, without the Beit HaMikdash, it cannot be properly sacrificed in Jerusalem. If the animal remains unblemished, the owner would be left with a kodesh animal that cannot be used for its intended purpose and cannot be consumed outside Jerusalem. Eating such an animal outside Jerusalem without a blemish would constitute a severe De'Oraita transgression. To prevent this, Chazal decreed לא לפרשו מעשר בהמה (not to separate animal tithe).

Meta-Psak Heuristics

This psak exemplifies a crucial meta-psak heuristic: Rabbinic authority to suspend a De'Oraita positive commandment through a shev v'al ta'aseh (passive non-action) to prevent a greater De'Oraita transgression or chillul Hashem.

• The Principle of Shev V'al Ta'aseh: The principle שב ואל תעשה מצי למיעקר ד"ת (a passive Rabbinic decree can uproot a Torah law) is fundamental. It demonstrates that Chazal's authority extends not just to adding fences around Torah law, but also, in extreme cases, to temporarily halting the performance of a positive mitzvah when its observance would lead to a severe takkalah. This is distinct from actively transgressing a lav (prohibition); it's about refraining from a mitzvah asseh (positive commandment).
• Hierarchy of Kedusha and Preventing Desecration: The takkanah highlights the profound concern Chazal had for the proper handling of kodshim. The sanctity of Ma'aser Behema is such that if it cannot be fulfilled in its ideal form (sacrifice in Jerusalem), it is better to prevent its kedusha from coming into existence than to risk its desecration. This shows a priority of preventing chillul Hashem or bikul kodshim (desecration of holy items) over the literal performance of a mitzvah asseh whose conditions are not met.
• Analogy to Bekhorah: As Tosafot Yom Tov noted (M. Bekhorot 9:1:3), a similar principle applies to Bekhorah. Today, a firstborn animal cannot be offered. To prevent its kedusha (which would lead to problems of redemption or an unuseable kodesh animal), Chazal permitted making a non-Jewish partner in the animal before birth. This is an even more proactive measure, preventing the kedusha from ever taking effect. This demonstrates the lengths Chazal would go to prevent the creation of kodshim that cannot be properly handled.

Implications for Modern Halakha

• No Actual Tithing: Practically, no one separates Ma'aser Behema today. Farmers with herds are entirely exempt due to this takkanah.
• Theoretical Obligation: Despite the non-practice, the underlying De'Oraita obligation theoretically remains. Should the Beit HaMikdash be rebuilt and conditions for sacrifice be restored, the takkanah would presumably fall away, and the mitzvah would immediately revert to its full De'Oraita applicability. This distinguishes it from mitzvot that are simply not applicable today (e.g., korbanot themselves, which require the Beit HaMikdash to be built). For Ma'aser Behema, it's an active suspension rather than a passive non-applicability.
• Continuous Relevance: The sugya remains highly relevant in limud Torah for understanding the interplay between Torah Shebichtav (Written Torah) and Torah Sheba'al Peh (Oral Torah), the dynamics of Rabbinic authority, and the nuanced application of halakhic principles. It serves as a classic case study for how Chazal navigated complex scenarios to preserve the integrity of Halakha in changing times.

Takeaway

The Mishnah on Ma'aser Behema is a profound illustration of Chazal's rigorous derashot from pesukim and their bold, yet meticulously reasoned, application of Rabbinic authority to suspend a De'Oraita mitzvah when its performance would lead to desecration. This tension between Torah law and Rabbinic safeguard, alongside the intricate interplay of kal vachomer, hekkesh, and specific textual derashot, forms the intellectual backbone of this sugya.