MISHNA: The mitzva of animal tithe is in effect both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, in the presence of, i.e., in the time of, the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple. It is in effect with regard to non-sacred animals but not with regard to sacrificial animals. And it is in effect with regard to the herd and the flock, but they are not tithed from one for the other; and it is in effect with regard to sheep and goats, and they are tithed from one for the other.

And it is in effect with regard to animals from the new flock and with regard to animals from the old flock, but they are not tithed from one for the other. As by right, it should be inferred: If in the case of animals from the new flock and the old flock, which do not carry the prohibition of mating diverse kinds when mated with each other because they are one species, are nevertheless not tithed from one for the other, then with regard to sheep and goats, which do carry the prohibition of mating diverse kinds when mated with each other, is it not right that they will not be tithed from one for the other? Therefore, the verse states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32), indicating that with regard to animal tithe, all animals that are included in the term flock are one species.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the mitzva of animal tithe is in effect both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: One might have thought that a person must bring up his animal tithe from outside of Eretz Yisrael and sacrifice it in the Temple. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall bring there your burnt offerings, and your offerings, and your tithes, and the offering of your hand, and your vows, and your gift offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 12:6).

Rabbi Akiva explains: The plural form “tithes” indicates that the verse is speaking of two tithes; one is the animal tithe, and the other one is the second tithe of grain, i.e., produce. Since these two tithes are included in the same word, it is derived from here that from the place where you bring up the tithe of grain, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, as the obligation to separate tithe of grain applies only there, you also bring up the animal tithe; but from a place where you do not bring up the tithe of grain, i.e., outside of Eretz Yisrael, you do not bring up the animal tithe either. This baraita, which states the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, apparently contradicts the ruling of the mishna.

The Gemara responds: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as the baraita and the mishna are referring to different cases. The baraita there is referring to the requirement to bring the animal tithe to Jerusalem for it to be sacrificed on the altar. By contrast, the mishna here is speaking of the status of every tenth animal; these animals are to be separated and consecrated. The Gemara adds that the language of the baraita is also precise, as it adduces a derivation from the phrase “and you shall bring there.” Conclude from this citation that the baraita is referring specifically to the requirement to bring the animal tithe and sacrifice it in Jerusalem.

The Gemara asks: If so, since animal tithe outside of Eretz Yisrael is not sacrificed on the altar, why is it consecrated? What is the significance of its sanctity? The Gemara answers that it is consecrated to the extent that it may be eaten by its owner only when it develops a blemish.

§ The mishna teaches that the animal tithe is in effect both in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple. The Gemara challenges: If so, then even nowadays the halakha of the animal tithe should be in effect. Why then do people not remove every tenth animal from their flock or herd? The Gemara answers: The reason is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: This is a rabbinic decree due to an orphan, i.e., a baby animal whose mother died before it was born, lest it be included with the other animals to be tithed; the obligation of animal tithe does not apply to it.

The Gemara challenges: If so, then even originally, when the Temple stood, the practice should have also been not to separate animal tithe in case an orphaned animal was included in the counting. Rather, the Gemara explains that there was no concern for an orphaned animal when the Temple stood, as it was possible to remove this concern by issuing an announcement to everyone that an orphaned animal is exempt from animal tithe. The Gemara suggests: Here too, it is possible to remove the concern by means of an announcement that an orphaned animal is exempt from animal tithe.

Rather, Rabba says: The reason animal tithe is no longer separated is due to concern that a mishap might occur. And from where do you say that we are concerned for a mishap after the destruction of the Temple? As we learned in a baraita: One may neither consecrate items, nor valuate an item’s worth based on its appraisal, nor dedicate items for sacred use (see Leviticus, chapter 27) and dedicate its monetary worth to the Temple treasury, in the present time, when the Temple is no longer standing.

The baraita continues: And if one did consecrate, or valuate, or dedicate items for sacred use, the presence of these items might lead to the mishap of the violation of the prohibition against using consecrated property. Therefore, if one dedicated an animal it should be destroyed. If he dedicated produce, garments, or vessels made from materials that decompose, he should store them until they decompose. And if he dedicated money or metal vessels, he should take them and cast them into the Dead Sea. The Gemara adds: And in the case of an animal, what constitutes uprooting? He locks the door before it, and it dies on its own from hunger. This baraita indicates that animals that cannot be sacrificed nowadays must be left to die so that they are not used improperly.

The Gemara challenges: If so, then a firstborn should also not be consecrated, as this too could lead to a mishap. The Gemara responds: Does the matter of the consecration of a firstborn depend on us? The animal is automatically consecrated upon its exit from the womb. The Gemara answers that this is what the questioner is saying: Let us sell the ears of all firstborn animals to gentiles before their births, so that they are not consecrated from the outset. A firstborn animal that is jointly owned by a Jew and a gentile does not become consecrated as a firstborn.