בכורות 14:1 — Soncino English Talmud

MISHNAH. 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.