Bekhorot — Daf 15b

איכא דאמרי (דברים יב, טו) תזבח ואכלת אין לך בהן היתר אכילה אלא משעת זביחה ואילך אבל פודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים ה"נ דאמר:

וולדן וחלבן אסור לאחר פדיונן: היכי דמי אילימא דאיעבר ואיתיליד לאחר פדיונן אמאי ולד צבי ואיל נינהו אלא דאיעבר לפני פדיונן ואיתיליד לאחר פדיונן הא לפני פדיונן מיקדש נמי קדשי

מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן זכר לרבות את הולד ונקבה לרבות את התמורה

ואין לי אלא ולד תמימין ותמורת תמימים ולדי בעלי מומין ותמורת בעלי מומין מנין כשהוא אומר אם זכר לרבות ולד בעלי מומין אם נקבה לרבות תמורת בעלי מומין

אותן ולדות שלאחר פדיונן מה תהא עליהן לפני פדיונן מיפלג פליגי בהו איכא למאן דאמר קדשי ליקרב ואיכא למאן דאמר קדשי לרעייה

דלאחר פדיונן מה תהא עליהן אמר רב הונא כונסן לכיפה והן מתין דהיכי ליעביד ליקרבינהו מכח קדושה דחויה קאתו ליפרקינהו לא אלימי למיתפס פדיונן

אמרי במערבא משמיה דרבי חנינא סמוך לפדיונן מתפיסן לשם אותו זבח סמוך לפדיונן למימרא דבני פדייה נינהו אלא אימא סמוך לפדיון אמן מתפיסן לשם אותו זבח טעמא מאי אמר רבי לוי גזירה שמא יגדל מהן עדרים עדרים

בעא מיניה רבינא מרב ששת מהו שמתפיסן לכל זבח שירצה א"ל אין מתפיסן מאי טעמא אמר ליה גמר בשעריך בשעריך מבכור מה בכור אין מתפיסן לכל זבח שירצה דכתיב (ויקרא כז, כו) אך בכור אשר יבוכר לה' בבהמה וגו' לא יקדיש איש אותו אף הני אין מתפיסן לכל זבח שירצה

תניא כוותיה דרב ששת קדשים שקדם מום קבוע להקדישן ונפדו חייבין בבכורה ובמתנות בין לפני פדיונן בין לאחר פדיונן הגוזז והעובד בהן אינו סופג את הארבעים בין לפני פדיונן בין לאחר פדיונן אין עושין תמורה

ולפני פדיונן מועלין בהן ולאחר פדיונן אין מועלין בהן וולדותיהן חול ונפדין תמימים ומתפיסן לכל זבח שירצה כללו של דבר הרי הן כחולין לכל דבריהם אין לך בהם אלא מצות עלוי בלבד

אבל קדם הקדישן את מומן או מום עובר להקדישן ולאחר מכאן נולד מום קבוע ונפדו פטורין מן הבכורה ומן המתנות בין לפני פדיונן בין לאחר פדיונן הגוזז והעובד בהן סופג את הארבעים ובין לפני פדיונן בין לאחר פדיונן עושין תמורה

לפני פדיונן מועלין בהן ולאחר פדיונן אין מועלין בהן וולדותיהן קודש ואין ניפדין תמימין ואין מתפיסן לכל זבח שירצה כללו של דבר הרי הן כהקדש לכל דבריהם ואין לך בהן אלא היתר אכילה בלבד

כללו של דבר דרישא לאתויי שוחטן בחוץ דפטור כללו של דבר דסיפא

Some there are who say: ‘Thou mayest kill and eat’: The permission of eating of blemished dedicated sacrifices is only from the time of their killing and thenceforward.1 We may, however, redeem dedicated sacrifices to give food to dogs.2 THEIR OFFSPRING AND THEIR MILK ARE FORBIDDEN AFTER THEIR REDEMPTION. How is this to be understood? Shall I say that they became pregnant and gave birth after their redemption? Why [in that case should they be forbidden]? [The offspring] are [as] the gazelle and a hart!3 Rather what is meant is that they became pregnant before their redemption and give birth after their redemption. But if [they were born] before their redemption, they would indeed become holy. Whence is this proved? For our Rabbis taught: [Scripture says]: ‘Whether male’:4 this includes the offspring [of a peace-offering].5 [It goes on] ‘or a female’; this includes an animal [exchanged for a peace-offering].6 Now I can only infer from these unblemished offspring and unblemished exchanged animals. Whence, however, can I derive blemished offspring7 and blemished exchanged animals? When Scripture says: ‘Whether a male’, it includes even blemished offspring and the text ‘or a female’, includes an exchanged blemished animal. Those young [which were In embryo before their redemption] and were born after their redemption — what shall become of them? Concerning those born before their redemption there is a difference of opinion. There is one authority who says they are so far holy as to be offered up, and there is another authority who says they are only so far holy as to be left to graze.8 But what is to be done with [the offspring] born after their redemption. — Said R. Huna: We put them in a vault and they die [of hunger]. For what are we to do? Shall we offer them up on the altar? They derive their status from a holiness which has been cancelled.9 Shall we redeem them? They are not qualified to receive redemption.10 In the West [Palestine] it was stated in the name of R. Hanina: Before their redemption he consecrates them for that particular sacrifice.11 ‘Before their redemption’? Does this mean to say that they are capable of redemption? Explain rather [as follows]: Before the redemption of their mother,12 he consecrated them for that particular sacrifice. And what is the reason?13 — Said R. Levi: It is a preventive measure, lest he should rear of them flocks.14 Rabina asked of R. Shesheth: May he consecrate [the offspring]15 for any sacrifice that he chose? — He replied: He may not consecrate them, [except for the particular sacrifice of the mother]. What is the reason? — He said to him: There is an analogy between the words ‘within thy gates’16 [used in connection with blemished dedicated sacrifices] and the words ‘within thy gates’17 [used in connection with the firstling]: just as a firstling does not become consecrated after birth for any sacrifice which he chooses, because Scripture writes: Howbeit the firstling among the beasts which is born a firstling to the Lord, no man shall sanctify it,18 so these young ones do not become consecrated for any sacrifice he chooses. It has been taught in accordance with the opinion of R. Shesheth: Dedicated sacrifices which became permanently blemished before their dedication and were redeemed are subject to the law of the firstling and of the [priestly] gifts; whether before their redemption or after their redemption. one who shears them and works with them does not receive forty lashes; whether before their redemption or after their redemption, the law of substitute does not apply to them; before their redemption. the law of Sacrilege19 applies to them, but after their redemption it does not; their offspring are unconsecrated [even if in embryo before redemption and born after redemption]; they are redeemed unblemished20 and become consecrated for any sacrifice he chooses. The general rule in this matter is: They are like unconsecrated animals in all particulars. The only religious duty which applies to them is that of valuing them [for redemption].21 But if their dedication preceded their blemish, or if a transitory blemish [preceded] their dedication and after that there appeared on them a permanent blemish, and they were redeemed, they are exempt from the law of the firstling and from the [priestly] gifts; whether before their redemption or after their redemption, one who shears and works them receives forty lashes; whether before their redemption or after their redemption, the law of substitute applies to them; before their redemption. Sacrilege applies to them, but not after their redemption;22 their offspring are holy [if in embryo before redemption]; they are not redeemed unblemished; and they do not become consecrated for any sacrifice that he chooses.23 The general rule in the matter is that they are like consecrated animals in all particulars. You have only the permission to eat them. Now the general rule of the first part [of the Baraitha above] is stated in order to include the rule that one who slaughters them without [the Temple Court] is exempt [from the punishment of excision]. The general rule of the second part [of the Baraitha] The word ‘flesh’ is on this view not expounded. peace-offering must be a male, as is the case with a burnt-offering. I should have known that there was no restriction as regards the sex of the animal. delaying until a blemish appears is because unblemished animals are not redeemed. has now lost its sanctity, owing to its blemish. Secondly, since the offspring were born after the mother's redemption, they cannot be invested with any sanctity so as to be sacrificed on the altar. hullin. and in this way redemption, after a blemish appears on them, is required, as their mother's redemption did not cancel their sanctity. animals, delay the redemption of their mothers, and even be led to eat them without the required redemption. Another explanation (quoted by Rashi) is: What is the reason of the authority who says that we condemn the offspring to die, and also, what is the reason of the other authority who maintains that we consecrate them for a sacrifice? Why did the Rabbis trouble in the matter at all? Could not the offspring be left in their forbidden state? The answer is that we fear lest one might raise flocks, that these offspring will in turn give birth to others and we might be led to commit an offence, whereas after redemption, we do not entertain any fears, as the offspring then are hullin. Still another explanation (quoted by Rashi) is: Why does the Mishnah say that the offspring are forbidden after redemption, seeing that their mother's holiness has been cancelled? And the reply given is because, if we permit the offspring to be used, we might raise flocks of blemished dedicated sacrifices for the sake of the offspring born after redemption and, thus might be led to transgress the law concerning shearing and working. firstling attaches to it. worse a case than using an object dedicated to the keeping of the Temple in repair.