Selling the Right to Bestow Priestly Gifts

The commentators debate whether an owner may accept payment to steer a firstborn animal to a specific priest, or if this leniency is limited to agricultural produce.

Benefiting from Priestly Gifts

A baraita cited on the daf addresses the distribution of gifts owed to priests, Levites, and the poor. A farmer may never give these consecrated portions as wages for labor. Nevertheless, the owner retains a legal right called טובת הנאה (the benefit of discretion).

Because the owner decides which individual receives the gift, he may derive secondary benefit from that selection,. Specifically, an Israelite may accept a סלע (a coin worth four zuz) from another Israelite who asks him to direct his תרומה (heave-offering) to the donor's priestly grandson,.

הֵא לְךָ סֶלַע זֶה, וּתְנֵהוּ לְבֶן בִּתִּי כֹּהֵן — מוּתָּר.

“Take this sela coin for yourself and give it to my daughter’s son who is a priest”—it is permitted. (Bekhorot 27a:2)

The Gemara's Distinction Between Gifts

The Gemara immediately questions the scope of this illustration. Why did the baraita speak only of תרומה, rather than including מתנות כהונה (the meat gifts of the priesthood), such as a בכור (firstborn animal) or the foreleg, jaw, and maw,?

The Gemara explains that תרומה possesses קדושת הגוף (inherent bodily sanctity), which cannot be transferred to money. By contrast, animal gifts possess קדושת דמים (value sanctity). Because animal gifts can be bought and sold, the Sages feared people might become confused if money changed hands,.

תְּרוּמָה, דִּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף הִיא, דְּכֵיוָן דְּלָא מִתַּחֲלָא — לָא אָתֵי לְמִיטְעֵי בַּהּ.

In the case of teruma, which has inherent sanctity, and which therefore cannot be redeemed, one will not come to err regarding it. (Bekhorot 27a:3)

Rashi: Animal Gifts Are Excluded

Rashi explains that the Gemara is justifying why the baraita excluded animal gifts from the permit of טובת הנאה. In his view, an owner may only accept money to direct produce, never meat gifts or a firstborn,.

Rashi reasons that if a priest knows his grandfather paid four zuz to secure the meat, he might mistakenly assume the sanctity was redeemed into secular food. Consequently, he might fail to eat the sacred meat with royal dignity—roasted and accompanied by mustard,.

Rabbeinu Gershom: The Scope of Desecration

Rabbeinu Gershom presents an entirely different reading of the sugya,. He argues that the Gemara was questioning the opening clause of the baraita, which declared that paying workers with gifts causes חילול (desecration).

Why was the penalty of desecration mentioned only for grain gifts and not meat gifts? Because if the Rabbis announced that an animal gift was desecrated, people might treat it as profane and feed it to dogs. Under this reading, accepting payment for discretion was never restricted, and remains fully permitted for animal gifts and firstborns,.

אי אמינא חיללו אתי למיטעא בהו ואתי למינהג בהו מנהג זלזול דחולין ושמא יאכילו לכלבים

If I were to say “they desecrated,” one would come to err regarding them and come to treat them with disrespectful unconsecrated conduct, and perhaps feed them to dogs. (Rabbeinu Gershom on Bekhorot 27a:4)

The Halakhic Rulings

This disagreement directly governs whether an owner may monetize his discretion when handling a firstborn animal. The Rambam rules that an Israelite may accept a sela to steer either תרומה, a firstborn, or standard animal gifts to a favored priest,. Commentators explain that the Rambam adopted the sugya's structure as understood by Rabbeinu Gershom.

In contrast, the Rema follows the restrictive interpretation championed by Rashi. According to this ruling, accepting payment to direct gifts is forbidden for animal gifts, ensuring that sacred meat is never degraded into ordinary commercial goods.

While Rashi forbids taking payment to direct animal gifts lest priests treat the meat as secular, Rabbeinu Gershom and the Rambam permit taking payment for the discretion of all priestly gifts.

Learn Bekhorot 27 on Super Daf