Bekhorot — Daf 16a

לאתויי חלבו

אמר מר אין נפדין תמימין ואין מתפיסן לכל זבח שירצה תמימים הוא דלא מיפרקי הא בעלי מומין מיפרקי לכל שירצה הוא דאין מתפיסן הא לאותו זבח מתפיסן

היכי משכחת לה דמתפיסן לאותו זבח ונפדין במומן נימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב הונא

אמר לך רב הונא ה"ה דאפילו בעלי מומין אין נפדין ואיידי דתנא רישא נפדין תמימים תנא נמי סיפא אין נפדין תמימים ואיידי דתנא רישא לכל זבח שירצה תנא נמי סיפא לכל זבח שירצה:

והשוחטן בחוץ פטור: רב הונא מתני חייב ומוקים לה בדוקין שבעין ואליבא דר"ע דאמר אם עלו לא ירדו:

בין לפני פדיונו בין לאחר פדיונו עושה תמורה: אמר ר"נ אמר רבה בר אבוה ותמורתו לאחר פדיונו מתה מאי טעמא היכי ליעביד ליקרביה מכח קדושה דחויה קאתיא ליפרקה לא אלימא למיתפס פדיונה הלכך מתה

מתקיף לה רב עמרם ותיתכיל במומה לבעלים וכי מה בין זו לתמורת בכור ומעשר דתנן תמורת בכור ומעשר הן וולדן וולד ולדן עד סוף כל העולם הרי הן כבכור ומעשר ויאכלו במומן לבעלים

אמר ליה אביי זה שם אמו עליו וזה שם אמו עליו זה כולו תמורת בכור ומעשר מיקריא מה בכור ומעשר במומן מיתאכלן לבעלים אף תמורתן מיתאכלא

וזה שם אמו עליו תמורת קדשים מיקריא מה קדשים לא מיתכלי אלא בפדיון אף תמורתן נמי לא מיתכלי אלא בפדיון והא לא אלימא למיתפס פדיונה

תניא כוותיה דרב נחמן מנין לתמורת פסולי המוקדשין שמתה תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יא, ד) ממעלי הגרה טמא האי מיבעי ליה לחמש חטאות מתות ההוא (ויקרא יא, ד) ממפריסי הפרסה טמא נפקא

תניא נמי הכי מנין לחמש חטאות מתות תלמוד לומר ממפריסי הפרסה טמא חמש חטאות מתות הילכתא גמירי לה אלא כי אתא קרא לתמורת אשם

תמורת אשם נמי הילכתא היא כל שבחטאת מתה באשם רועה

אלא לעולם חמש חטאות מתות ואצטריך קרא ואצטריך הילכתא דאי מקרא הוה אמינא לרעייה קמ"ל הילכתא למיתה ואי מהילכתא הוה אמינא היכא דעבד איקרי ואכל מהני חמש חטאות איסורא איכא לאו ליכא קמשמע לן דאיכא לאו

ואיבעית אימא לאקושי דבר הבא ממעלי גרה לדבר הבא ממפריסי הפרסה מה להלן במיתה אף כאן במיתה:

מתני׳ המקבל צאן ברזל מן העובד כוכבים

is adduced to include its milk.1 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 blemished2 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?3 — 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’,4 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’.5 R. Huna read [as in the Mishnah]:6 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.7 ‘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.8 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!9 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,10 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’.11 But is this text not required to teach that there are five sin-offerings that are left to die?12 — 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?13 — 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. 14 MISHNAH. IF ONE RECEIVES FLOCK FROM A HEATHEN ON ‘IRON TERMS’,15 of the first part of the Baraitha include milk as permissible, for since the offspring are permitted, all the more so is the milk. Again, the general rule in the second part of the Baraitha could not include the case of one who slaughters without the Temple Court as punishable with excision, for here, too, he may be exempt, for since the sacrifice cannot be offered up in the Temple, there is no prohibition of killing them outside the Temple Court. sacrifice of the mother. Baraitha we deduce that they are subject to redemption and are consecrated for a particular sacrifice. and R. Gershom. Akiba, because, in the first place, a cataract is not considered a blemish in birds and, moreover, it is not a blemish of a prominent nature. But an animal with a prominent and permanent blemish, since it is invalid as a sacrifice in the Temple, is not forbidden to be slaughtered outside the Temple precincts. The expression also ‘eaten by their owners’ mentioned in connection with the firstling, means that if blemished it is eaten by the priests, whereas in connection with a tithed animal, ‘the owners’ refers to the Israelites. viz., an animal exchanged for a blemished sacrifice. why the Baraitha refers it to the text ‘of them that divide the hoof’ is because it wishes to draw an analogy between the animal exchanged for a blemished sacrifice after redemption, which is inferred from the text ‘of them that chew the cud’ and the rule of the five sin-offerings, inferring that just as the latter are condemned to die, so the former is condemned to die, thus confirming the view of R. Nahman. the end of a stipulated period and that meanwhile the owner shares the offspring. The interests of the owner are consequently well protected against loss and the security is like barzel (iron). V. B.M.. Sonc. ed., p. 405. n. 3.