Parallel
בכורות 16
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
is adduced to include its milk. The Master said: They are not redeemed unblemished and they do not become consecrated for any sacrifice he chooses. The unblemished are not redeemed; we infer from this that the blemished are redeemed. Also for any sacrifice he chooses they are not consecrated; we infer from this that for that particular sacrifice they are consecrated. Now what do we find here? That they are consecrated for that particular sacrifice and are redeemed when blemished. Shall we say that this confutes R. Huna? — R. Huna can answer thus: The rule really is that blemished animals also are not redeemed, but, since the first part [of the Baraitha] states: ‘They are redeemed unblemished’, therefore the second part [of the Baraitha] also states: ‘they are not redeemed unblemished’. And also, since it states in the first part [of the Baraitha]: For any sacrifice he chooses, the second part [in the Baraitha] also states: For any sacrifice he chooses. ‘And he who slaughters them without [the Temple Court] is not culpable’. R. Huna read [as in the Mishnah]: He is culpable, and he explains it, of a case where the blemished animal had a withered spot in the eye, [a cataract] and in accordance with the opinion of R. Akiba, who maintains: If they have been put on the altar, they must not be taken down again. ‘Both before its redemption and after its redemption, the law of substitute applies’. R. Nahman reported in the name of Rabba the son of Abbuha: And the exchanged animal after its redemption is left to die. What is the reason? — How are we to do? Shall we offer it up? The animal exchanged derives its status from cancelled holiness. Shall we redeem it? It is not qualified to receive redemp tion; therefore we leave it to die. R. Amram demurred. And why should the exchanged animal not be eaten by the owners when blemished? In what way is this different from an animal exchanged for a firstling and a tithed animal? For we have learnt: Animals exchanged for a firstling and a tithed animal, and also their offspring and their offspring's offspring until the end of time are like a firstling and a tithed animal and are eaten by their owners when blemished! Said Abaye to him: In this case it bears the name of its mother, and, in the other case, it bears the name of its mother. In this case it bears the name of its mother, for it is called the animal substituted for a firstling and a tithed animal; and, therefore, as a firstling and a tithed animal are eaten by their owners when blemished, so the exchanged animal is eaten under similar circumstances. And in the other case, it bears the name of its mother. It is called the animal exchanged for the dedicated sacrifice; and, as a dedicated sacrifice which became blemished may not be eaten unless redeemed, so also an animal exchanged for a dedicated sacrifice is not eaten unless redeemed. But in this present case, it is not qualified to receive redemption and, therefore, [it is left to die]. It has been taught in accordance with the opinion of R. Nahman: Whence do we derive that an animal exchanged for a blemished dedicated sacrifice is left to die? Because it says: ‘nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, he is unclean to you’. But is this text not required to teach that there are five sin-offerings that are left to die? — The latter teaching we learn from [the continuation of the text]: ‘Of them that divide the hoof, he is unclean to you’. It has also been taught to the same effect: Whence do we derive that the five sin-offerings are left to die? Because it says: ‘All of them that divide the hoof, he is unclean’. But is not the rule of the five sin-offerings that are left to die learnt purely from tradition? — Rather the text comes to teach us concerning the animal exchanged for a guilt-offering that it pastures [until blemished]. But is not the rule of a guilt-offering also learnt purely from tradition, for wherever a sin-offering is left to die, in a corresponding case, a guilt-offering pastures? — The fact is that the text still refers to the rule of the five sin-offerings left to die, and both the text and the traditional law are necessary. For had I the text alone, I might have said that they are condemned to pasture. Therefore, the traditional law teaches us that they are to die. And had I the traditional law alone I might have said that if by chance he ate of these five sin-offerings, he performed a forbidden action, but he did not transgress a negative precept. Therefore a scriptural text teaches us that he transgresses a negative precept, [ye shall not eat]. Or if you wish, I may say that it is in order to compare an object the rule of which is derived from the text of them that chew the cud, with an object the rule of which is derived from the text of them that divide the hoof, so as to teach that, just as there, they are condemned to die, so here also they are condemned to die. MISHNAH. IF ONE RECEIVES FLOCK FROM A HEATHEN ON ‘IRON TERMS’,15
—
THEIR OFFSPRING ARE EXEMPT [FROM THE LAW OF] THE FIRSTLING. BUT THE OFFSPRING OF THEIR OFFSPRING ARE LIABLE [TO THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING]. IF [THE ISRAELITE] PUT THE OFFSPRING IN THE PLACE OF THEIR MOTHERS, THEN THE OFFSPRING OF THE OFFSPRING ARE EXEMPT, BUT THE OFFSPRING OF THE OFFSPRING OF THE OFFSPRING ARE LIABLE [TO THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING]. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: EVEN UNTO TEN GENERATIONS THE OFFSPRING ARE EXEMPT [FROM THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING]. SINCE THEY ARE PLEDGED TO THE HEATHEN. IF A EWE GAVE BIRTH TO WHAT LOOKED LIKE A KID, OR A KID WHICH GAVE BIRTH TO WHAT LOOKED LIKE A EWE, IT IS EXEMPT FROM [THE LAW OF] THE FIRSTLING BUT IF IT POSSESSES CERTAIN CLEAR MARKS [RESEMBLING THE MOTHER] IT IS LIABLE [TO THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING]. GEMARA. Does this mean to say that since the owner does not take money, therefore it is still the property of the owner? Against this I quote: One must not receive a flock from an Israelite on ‘iron terms’, because It is usury. This shows that it is in the ownership of the receiver? — Said Abaye: This is no difficulty. In the one case [our Mishnah] he [the heathen owner] took the risks of accidents and a fall in value while in the other he [the owner] did not take the risks of accidents and a fall in value. Raba said to him: If he took the risks of accidents and a fall in value, do you call this receiving a flock on ‘iron terms’, and, moreover, where is this distinction implied [in the context]? And, moreover, why does the second part [of the passage quoted above] state: ‘One may receive from a heathen a flock on "iron terms"’? Why not draw a distinction in the first part [itself, as follows]: When does this apply? Where he [the owner] did not undertake the risks of accidents and a fall in value, but where he undertook the risks of accidents and a fall in value, it is permitted! — Rather said Raba, In both cases he [the owner] did not take the risks of accidents and a fall in value. But here, in connection with the firstling, this is the reason. If the heathen came and wanted money and the Israelite did not give it to him, he would seize the animal, and if he did not find the animal, he would seize its offspring. Therefore the heathen has a share in it, and wherever the heathen has a share [in an animal], it is exempt from [the law of] the firstling. (IF THE ISRAELITE PUT THE OFFSPRING IN THE PLACE OF THEIR MOTHERS, THE OFFSPRING OF THE OFFSPRING ARE EXEMPT:) Said R. Huna: Their offspring are exempt from the law of the firstling, but the offspring of the offspring are liable to the law of the firstling. Rab Judah. however, said: The offspring of the offspring are also exempt, but the offspring of the offspring of the offspring are liable [to the law of the firstling]. We have learnt in a Mishnah: IF THE ISRAELITE PUT THE OFFSPRING IN THE PLACE OF THEIR MOTHERS, THE OFFSPRING OF THE OFFSPRING ARE EXEMPT. The reason for exemption is because he put them in place of their mothers. But if he did not do so, they would not be exempt. Now, is this not an argument against Rab Judah? — Rab Judah can answer: The same applies even if he did not put the offspring [in the place of the mothers]; but the Mishnah, however, teaches us this, that even if he put [the offspring in the place of their mothers], since it is the custom of the heathen to seize the offspring [failing the mother], it is as if he had not put the offspring [in place of their mothers]. We are therefore informed [that even so] the offspring of the offspring are exempt, but the offspring of the offspring of the offspring are liable [to the law of the firstling]. We have learnt in the Mishnah: RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: EVEN UNTO TEN GENERATIONS THE OFFSPRING ARE EXEMPT, SINCE THEY ARE PLEDGED TO THE HEATHEN. Now there is no difficulty on the view of Rab Judah who said that the first Tanna [in the Mishnah] goes up to [two] generations,
—