בכורות 14 — Soncino English Talmud

¹MISHNAH. ALL DEDICATED SACRIFICES WHICH HAD A PERMANENT BLEMISH BEFORE THEIR DEDICATION AND WERE REDEEMED, ARE LIABLE [TO THE LAW] OF THE FIRSTLING AND THE [PRIESTLY] GIFTS; THEY BECOME UNCONSECRATED ANIMALS AS REGARDS SHEARING AND WORKING; THEIR OFFSPRING AND MILK ARE PERMITTED TO BE USED AFTER THEIR REDEMPTION; HE WHO SLAUGHTERS THEM WITHOUT [THE TEMPLE COURT] DOES NOT INCUR [THE PUNISHMENT OF EXCISION]; AND THE LAW OF SUBSTITUTE DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM; AND IF THEY DIED [BEFORE REDEMPTION]. THEY MAY BE REDEEMED, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF A FIRSTLING AND AN ANIMAL SET ASIDE FOR TITHE [OF CATTLE]. ALL ANIMALS HOWEVER WHICH WERE DEDICATED BEFORE THEY BECAME BLEMISHED OR HAD ONLY SUFFERED A TRANSITORY BLEMISH BEFORE THEIR DEDICATION AND AFTER THAT DEVELOPED A PERMANENT BLEMISH, AND WERE REDEEMED, ARE EXEMPT [FROM THE LAW] OF THE FIRSTLING AND FROM THE [PRIESTLY] GIFTS; THEY DO NOT BECOME UNCONSECRATED AS REGARDS SHEARING AND WORKING; THEIR OFFSPRING AND MILK ARE FORBIDDEN TO BE USED AFTER THEIR REDEMPTION; HE WHO SLAUGHTERS THEM WITHOUT [THE TEMPLE COURT] IS PUNISHABLE [WITH EXCISION]; THE LAW OF SUBSTITUTE APPLIES TO THEM; AND IF THEY DIE, THEY ARE TO BE BURIED. GEMARA. The reason is because they were redeemed, but if they were not redeemed, they would have been exempt from [the law of] the firstling and from the [priestly] gifts, for [the Mishnah] holds that the consecration of an object consecrated for its value sets aside [the law of] the firstling and the duty of the [priestly] gifts. AND THEY BECOME UNCONSECRATED etc. The reason is because they were redeemed, but if they were not redeemed, they would have been forbidden as regards shearing and working. This would confirm the opinion of R. Eleazar who said: Animals dedicated for keeping the Temple in repair, are forbidden as regards shearing and working! — [No]. It can he maintained that this is no proof. For an object consecrated for its value, eventually to be used for the altar, might be confused with an object which is itself consecrated for the altar, therefore the Rabbis enacted a prohibition. But in the case of an object dedicated for keeping the Temple in repair, the Rabbis did not enact a prohibition. THEIR OFFSPRING AND MILK ARE PERMITTED etc. How is this to be understood? Shall I say that [we speak of where] they became pregnant and gave birth after their redemption? Surely this is obvious? They are unconsecrated animals! Rather what is meant is that they were pregnant before their redemption and gave birth after their redemption. This implies that before their redemption, [the offspring] are forbidden!?15^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ

^ᵃnote:And the object of the dedication, since they possessed already a permanent blemish, was to sell them and purchase with the money sacrifices for the altar.
^ᵇnote:The shoulder, jaw and maw, as is the case with genuine hullin (unconsecrated animals).
^ᶜnote:For they are considered hullin, as they were blemished before dedication, and the law of dedicated sacrifices which had become unfit for the altar, where shearing and working are prohibited, does not apply to them.
^ᵈnote:Even if they were pregnant before their redemption, for since they gave birth after their redemption. their offspring are permitted. V. Gemara.
^ᵉnote:Even before their redemption. since the animals did not receive any sanctity from the outset, owing to their blemishes before dedication.
^ᶠnote:V. Lev. XXVII, 10.
^ᵍnote:In order to give the carcases to dogs to eat. Moreover, we are taught here also that they hold an inferior status compared with other dedicated sacrifices, which can only be redeemed when alive.
^ʰnote:A firstling, even with a permanent blemish. is sanctified as the passing through the womb consecrates it. And with reference also to tithing. Scripture ordains that whether it be good, i.e., without a blemish, or bad (blemished), the animal passes under the rod to be tithed.
^ⁱnote:Why the first clause of the Mishnah says that they are liable to the law of the firstling.
^ʲnote:Why the Mishnah says that shearing and working are permissible.
^ᵏnote:The dedicated animals are sold and the money is devoted to the repair of the Sanctuary.
^ˡnote:The money realized from its sale is used to purchase sacrifices for the altar, and we therefore prohibit its shearing and working.
^ᵐnote:Because if in the former case we permit the shearing and working, we might be led to permit in the latter case.
^ⁿnote:For there is little fear here that because in the one case we permit the shearing and working. we might be led to permit in connection with the object consecrated as such, as there is an obvious distinction between the two.
^ᵒnote:To be used for any purpose without redemption, nor could they be offered up on the altar, since even their own mother is not fit for the altar.

²[The point then arises], can they be redeemed even when they are without a blemish, or, can they not be redeemed so long as they are without a blemish? — Come and hear: If one consecrated animals having a permanent blemish for the altar and they gave birth, they are to be sold and [the offspring] do not need a blemish, because they receive no sanctity. For we cannot be more stringent with the subsidiary than with the principal object. Now the reason [why the offspring do not require a blemish before redemption], is because we should not be more stringent with the subsidiary than with the principal, but if he consecrated a male animal for its value, it receives the sanctity of an animal consecrated as such. This would support Raba's teaching. For Raba said: If one consecrated a male animal for its value, it receives the sanctity of an animal which has been consecrated in itself. HE WHO SLAUGHTERS THEM WITHOUT [THE TEMPLE COURT], DOES NOT INCUR [THE PUNISHMENT OF EXCISION]. R. Eleazar quoted [with reference to this passage of the Mishnah]: He is culpable. and he explains [the word ‘WITHOUT’ in the Mishnah] as meaning that he slaughters them on a private altar. For R. Eleazar said: Whence do we deduce that he who slaughters a blemished animal on a private altar at a period when high places are used legitimately, is guilty of transgressing a negative precept? Scripture says: Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Lord thy God an ox or a sheep wherein is a blemish. If this text has no bearing on a national altar, since Scripture has already stated: Blind or broken, ye shall not offer these unto the Lord, apply it to a private altar. Why not say that if the text has no bearing on dedicated sacrifices, apply it to a firstling? For I might have been inclined to assume that since it is holy even when blemished, [the shearing and working being forbidden], it should therefore be offered up even if blemished. Therefore Scripture teaches us that it is not so! — I might argue against this that in connection with a firstling. Scripture expressly states: Lame or blind thou shalt not sacrifice it. But why not say: If the above text has no bearing on dedicated sacrifices, let us apply it to animal tithes? For I might have been inclined to assume that since a tithed animal is holy even blemished, as Scripture writes, He shall not inquire whether it be good or bad, therefore we should offer it up even blemished, and Scripture consequently informs us that this is not so? — [In connection with] a tithed animal, too, we draw an analogy between ‘passing’ and ‘passing’ used in connection with a firstling. But why not then say: Let us apply the text above to an animal exchanged for a dedicated sacrifice? For I might have been inclined to assume that since it is sacred, even if blemished, since Scripture writes: Neither shall he alter it or change it etc. Therefore it should be offered up even blemished; and consequently Scripture teaches us that it is not so! Scripture says: Then it and that for which it is changed, shall be holy. It thus compares the exchanged animal with the animal itself; as the animal itself is unfit [for the altar] if blemished, so the exchanged animal with a blemish is unfit [for the altar]. R. Zera demurred: Why not say, apply the text to the blemished offspring [born of unblemished sacrifices]? For I might have been inclined to assume they are holy even blemished. through their mother, therefore they may be offered up even blemished, and Scripture therefore informs us that it is not so? — Said Raba: A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael has already pronounced on the matter. For a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael taught: Scripture says: Only thy holy things which thou hast and thy vows: ‘Only thy holy things’; this refers to exchanged animals, ‘which thou hast’: these are the offspring of dedicated sacrifices; ‘and thy vows’: Scripture here compares them with an animal vowed for a sacrifice: as an animal vowed for a sacrifice is unfit for the altar with a blemish, so these too are unfit with a blemish. THE LAW OF SUBSTITUTE DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM etc. What is the reason? Because Scripture Says: He shall not alter it nor change it, a good for a bad or a bad for a good. Now, if a bad [i.e., a blemished consecrated animal] must not be exchanged for a good [an unblemished and unconsecrated animal], is it necessary to inform us concerning the prohibition of exchanging a good [an unblemished consecrated animal] for a bad [a blemished animal]? What is meant then is, that to an animal good [i.e., unblemished] from the start [before dedication] [but which became blemished afterwards] the law of substitute applies, but to one bad [i.e., blemished] from the start [before dedication] the law of substitute does not apply. AND IF THEY DIED, THEY MAY BE REDEEMED. Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: This is the teaching of R. Simeon who said: Objects consecrated for the altar were [at first] included [in the law of] presentation and valuation, whereas objects consecrated for keeping the Temple in repair were not included in [the law of] presentation and valuation. For we have learnt: R. Simeon says: Objects consecrated for keeping the Temple in repair, if they die, are redeemed. R. Simeon agrees, however, that an animal blemished from the start [before dedication] may be redeemed. What is the reason? Because Scripture says: And [the priest shall value] it; the word ‘it’ excludes the case of an animal with a blemish from the start [before dedication]. But the Sages say: If they die they are to be buried. Who are the Sages referred to here? It is a Tanna of the School of Levi. For a Tanna of the School of Levi taught: All objects were [at first] included in [the law of] presentation and valuation, even an animal blemished from the start [before dedication]. And thus did the School of Levi teach in his Mishnah: Even a beast and even a bird. But does not Scripture say, ‘It’? — The word ‘It’, according to the opinion of the Tanna of the School of Levi, is a difficulty. But the Rabbis who differ from R. Simeon — what is the position? Is it a fact that they hold that if [the blemished dedicated animal] died, it is redeemed? If so,^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ

^ᵖnote:Must we delay until the offspring are blemished and then we can proceed to redeem them or, can they be redeemed as they are, without waiting?
^ᵠnote:I.e., we cannot be more stringent with the offspring than with the mother, seeing that the offspring is holy only in virtue of its mother. And as the mother can be redeemed at all times, the same rule should apply to its offspring. which solves the question.
^ʳnote:I.e., a ram which was dedicated for its value and which has the sanctity of an animal consecrated as such, insofar that is does not become hullin without a blemish appearing on it. The same ruling applies to a female animal, but as later on he wishes to support Raba's opinion and Raba mentions a male, he speaks here of a male.
^ˢnote:And for its money, a burnt-offering is purchased. The reason why Raba mentions a male animal is because the majority of people who bring a sacrifice offer up a burnt-offering, which is a male.
^ᵗnote:l.e, he is liable to forty lashes.
^ᵘnote:Lit., ‘high place’. A temporary altar. Private altars were e.g., like those made by Manoah, Gideon and Samuel, in times when any individual could build an improvised altar for himself; v. Meg. 9b.
^ᵛnote:Deut. XVII. 1.
^ʷnote:Lit., ‘great high place’. As the high places of Nob and Gibeon, which were national and public ones.
^ˣnote:Lev. XXII, 22.
^ʸnote:Therefore there is no proof that the text, Thou shalt not sacrifice etc., refers to a private altar.
^ᶻnote:Deut. XV, 21.
^ᵃᵃnote:Since this is already provided for in Lev. XXII, 22.
^ᵃᵇnote:The text, therefore, may still refer to a national altar and not to a private altar,
^ᵃᶜnote:Lev. XXVII, 33. ‘Bad’, i.e., blemished, and even so, if it is the tenth, it is holy.
^ᵃᵈnote:Mentioned in regard to the tithing of animals, Even of whatsoever passeth and the text, Then thou shalt cause to pass (set apart), referring to a firstling.
^ᵃᵉnote:Ibid. XXVII,10.
^ᵃᶠnote:Ibid.
^ᵃᵍnote:Quoted by R. Eleazar.
^ᵃʰnote:As unfit to be sacrificed on the altar.
^ᵃⁱnote:That the instances mentioned above as unfit for the altar if blemished, are derived from another verse. Therefore there is no need to deduce them from the above text, Thou shalt not sacrifice.
^ᵃʲnote:Deut. XII, 26.
^ᵃᵏnote:Which Scripture informs us are sacrificed on the altar.
^ᵃˡnote:Consequently, the verse ‘Thou shalt not sacrifice’ refers, as R. Eleazar explains, to a private altar.
^ᵃᵐnote:The statement of the Tanna of the Mishnah, that if they died, they may be redeemed.
^ᵃⁿnote:Before the priest of the object whose value is dedicated, as Scripture says: Then he shall present the beast before the priest. (Lev. XXVII, 11.)
^ᵃᵒnote:For although objects consecrated for the altar require presentation and valuation, and therefore, cannot be redeemed when dead, in the case here of a sacrifice blemished from the start, he agrees that it can be redeemed when dead, although there can be no presentation and valuation here; for it is like an object consecrated for Temple repairs. which was not included in the law of presentation and valuation.
^ᵃᵖnote:Lev. XXVII, 12.
^ᵃᵠnote:From the requirements of presentation and valuation.
^ᵃʳnote:For they are not the same Sages who differ with R. Simeon in Tem. 32b.
^ᵃˢnote:Levi compiled a collection of teachings.
^ᵃᵗnote:Whose value he dedicated for the keeping of the Temple in repair, as they are not suitable for the altar, require presentation and valuation.
^ᵃᵘnote:The Rabbis who dispute with R. Simeon in Tem. 32b, holding that both objects consecrated for the altar and objects consecrated for Temple repairs are included in the law of presentation and valuation, though they agree that an animal blemished from the start may be redeemed after its death.