Parallel
בכורות 33
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
And Beth Hillel? — This is only the case in connection with an unblemished firstling. but with reference to a blemished firstling, the text says. The unclean and the clean person shall eat it alike. Now, if an unclean person who is forbidden to eat sacrifices of a minor grade may eat a firstling, how much more should a non-priest who may eat sacrifices of a minor grade be allowed to eat a firstling! But this argument can be refuted. The case of an unclean person is different, for he was permitted [and exempted] from the general rule in that he may officiate in the Temple service for the public. And Beth Hillel? — Does [the Baraitha] refer to Temple service? We are speaking of eating, and as regards eating, a non-priest has a better right! ‘And R. Akiba permits even in the case of a gentile’. What is the reason of R. Akiba? — [Scripture says]: As the gazelle and as the hart: as the gazelle and the hart are permitted to be eaten by a gentile, so a firstling is permitted to be eaten by a gentile. And the other authority? — There are three texts [in Deuteronomy] mentioning the gazelle and the hart. One text is for what R. Isaac and R. Oshaiah taught. the other for what R. Eleazar ha-Kappar taught: and the last [to interpret as follows]: As a gazelle and hart are not subject to the law of the firstling and the priest's gift, so consecrated objects rendered unfit for sacrifices are not subject to the law of the firstling and the priest's gifts. Our Rabbis taught: A firstling must not be given to eat to menstruant women. These are the words of Beth Shammai, whereas Beth Hillel say: We are allowed to give it to eat to menstruant women. What is the reason of Beth Shammai? — Scripture writes [with reference to a firstling]: ‘And the flesh of them shall be thine [as the wave-breast and as the right shoulder]’: as there [in the case of the wave-breast etc.] menstruant women are forbidden to eat, so here menstruant women are forbidden to eat [the firstling]. And Beth Hillel? This is only the case with an unblemished firstling, but as regards a blemished firstling, ‘the unclean as well as the clean may eat it alike’. And Beth Shammai? — This is only the case [that an unclean person may eat it] where the impurity does not issue from the body, but where the impurity issues from the body, it is not so, for we find that the Divine Law makes a distinction between impurity which issues from the body and impurity which does not issue from the body. For we have learnt: The paschal lamb which is offered [by those] in a state of uncleanness must not be eaten by zabim, zaboth, menstruant women or confined women. And Beth Hillel? There, [zabim etc. are forbidden to eat the paschal lamb] because Scripture explicitly made this clear in the text: ‘By reason of a dead body’, whereas here in connection with a firstling, the text says: ‘The unclean person’ in general, implying, without any distinction. Our Rabbis taught: We must not flay an animal from the feet on a Holy Day; nor [on a weekday] when the animal is a firstborn [even blemished]; nor sacrifices rendered unfit. Now, we understand this as regards a Holy Day. because he undertakes a labour of which he can make no use [on that day], but as regards a firstling, who is the authority [for the law just quoted]? — Said R. Hisda: It is the view of Beth Shammai, who say: We must not give it to eat to menstruant women. ‘Nor sacrifices rendered unfit’. Who is the authority [for this]? — Said R. Hisda: It is the opinion of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon. For it has been taught: If he has two sin-offerings in front of him, one unblemished and the other blemished, the unblemished one shall be offered up and the blemished one shall be redeemed. If, however, the blemished one was slaughtered before the blood of the unblemished animal was sprinkled, it may be eaten; but [if it was slaughtered] after the blood of the unblemished animal was sprinkled, it is forbidden [to be eaten]. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon however says: Even if the flesh [of the blemished one] is already in the pot, if the blood of the unblemished one had been sprinkled, it is forbidden [to be eaten]. And why does not R. Hisda interpret [the above Baraitha] altogether in accordance with Beth Shammai? — Perhaps Beth Shammai is stringent only with reference to a firstling, since its holiness is from birth, but in the case of sacrifices which have become unfit, whose holiness is not from birth, the case is different.
—
And why not interpret [the above Baraitha] altogether in accordance with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon? — Perhaps R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon holds that it is forbidden only in the case of sacrifices which have become unfit, for they are competent to be redeemed, but in the case of a firstling which is not competent to be redeemed, it is different. But does not R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon accept [the preceding Mishnah]: All consecrated objects which become unfit may be sold in the market, slaughtered in the market and weighed by the pound? From this We see that since there is a benefit for the Sanctuary, the Rabbis permitted it; here also then, since there is a benefit for the Sanctuary, let the Rabbis permit its flaying? — Said R. Mari the son of R. Kahana: What benefit he obtains through selling the skin [at a high price], he loses by spoiling the flesh. In the Palestinian colleges it was said in the name of Rabina: [The reason is] because it appears like doing work with sacrificial animals. R. Jose b. Abin says: [It is a precautionary measure] lest he raise herds from them. MISHNAH. IF A FIRSTLING HAS AN ATTACK OF CONGESTION WE MUST NOT LET ITS BLOOD EVEN IF IT DIES [AS A RESULT]. THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. JUDAH. BUT THE SAGES SAY: HE MAY LET BLOOD. ONLY HE MUST NOT MAKE A BLEMISH. AND IF HE MADE A BLEMISH, HE MUST NOT SLAUGHTER IT ON ACCOUNT OF THIS. R. SIMEON HOWEVER SAYS: HE MAY LET BLOOD, EVEN THOUGH HE MAKES A BLEMISH. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: We may let blood of a firstling which had an attack of congestion, in a part [of the body] where it is not made blemished, but we must not let blood in a part [of the body] where a blemish is caused. These are the words of R. Meir. But the Sages say: He may let blood even in a part which makes it blemished, only he must not slaughter it on account of that blemish. R. Simeon however says: It may also be slaughtered on account of that blemish. R. Judah says: We must not let blood for it even if it dies [as a result]. R. Eleazar taught his son as follows: A similar difference of opinion exists with reference to a jug of terumah. For we have learnt: If there is a jug of terumah concerning which there is a doubt as to its levitical cleanness, R. Eliezer says: If it was lying in a filthy place, he must put it in a cleanly place, and if it was open, he must cover it. R. Joshua says: If it was lying in a clean place, he must put it in a filthy place and if it was covered, he must open it, while R. Gamaliel says: He must not introduce any new factor. Now R. Meir will hold the view of R. Eliezer, the Rabbis will hold according to the view of R. Joshua and R. Judah will hold the view of R. Gamaliel. But whence [is this proven]? It may be that R. Meir holds this view only here because he does it directly, but there, where the effect is caused indirectly, he holds the view of R. Joshua. And it may be that R. Eliezer holds this view only [in connection with doubtful terumah], in case Elijah should come and pronounce it clean, but in this case, where if you leave it the animal dies, he holds the view of the Rabbis! And [perhaps] the Rabbis hold their view only here, for if he leaves it, it dies, but there, in case Elijah should come and pronounce it clean, they hold with R. Eliezer! [And perhaps R. Joshua holds his view only there because the effect is caused indirectly, but here, where the effect is direct, he may even hold the view of R. Eliezer!] And [perhaps] R. Judah holds his view only here, for he does it directly, but where the effect is merely caused indirectly, he may agree with R. Joshua. And [perhaps] R. Gamaliel may hold his view only there, in case Elijah should come and pronounce it clean, but here where if he leaves the animal, it dies, he agrees with the Rabbis! And moreover the difference of opinion here is with reference to the interpretation of Scriptural texts, and there too the difference of opinion is with reference to the interpretation of Scriptural texts! [There the difference is with reference to the interpretation of texts]. for R. Hiyya b. Abba reported in the name of R. Johanan: All are agreed that one who added a transgression to the leavening effected by another person is guilty [of breaking the law in this connection]. for Scripture says: It shall not be baked with leaven. No meal-offering . . . shall be made with leaven. All are also agreed in the case of one who adds [a transgression] to the mutilation caused by another person that he is guilty for Scripture writes: That which hath its stones bruised or crushed or torn or cut, [ye shall not offer unto the Lord]. Now if he is guilty for cutting [the stones]. how much more so is he guilty for tearing them! The purpose of the text is therefore to include the case of tearing after another person had cut as rendering him guilty. The point at issue, however, is with reference to causing a blemish to a blemished animal, R. Meir holding [that we emphasize the text]: There shall be no blemish therein, whereas the Rabbis hold [that we emphasize the full beginning]: It shall be perfect to be accepted. And what does R. Meir do with the text: ‘It shall be perfect to be accepted’? — He requires it to exclude the case of an animal which possessed a blemish originally. But is not the case of an originally blemished animal obviously excluded, since it is just a palm-tree? — Rather it is required to exclude the case of sacrifices rendered unfit [for the altar] after their redemption. You might be inclined to assume that since they must not be shorn or worked, they are also forbidden to be blemished. He therefore informs us [that it is not so]. And as regards the Rabbis, does not Scripture write: ‘There shall be no blemish therein’? — [This text] forbids causing a blemish even indirectly, for it has been taught: Scripture says: ‘There shall be no blemish therein’. I am here told
—