Bekhorot

[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?1 — 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. 2 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 male3 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,4 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.5 and he explains [the word ‘WITHOUT’ in the Mishnah] as meaning that he slaughters them on a private altar.6 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.7 If this text has no bearing on a national altar,8 since Scripture has already stated: Blind or broken, ye shall not offer these unto the Lord,9 apply it to a private altar. Why not say that if the text has no bearing on dedicated sacrifices, apply it to a firstling?10 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.11 But why not say: If the above text has no bearing on dedicated sacrifices,12 let us apply it to animal tithes?13 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,14 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’15 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.16 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.17 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 text18 to the blemished offspring [born of unblemished sacrifices]?19 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.20 For a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael taught: Scripture says: Only thy holy things which thou hast and thy vows:21 ‘Only thy holy things’; this refers to exchanged animals,22 ‘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. 23 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: This24 is the teaching of R. Simeon who said: Objects consecrated for the altar were [at first] included [in the law of] presentation25 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.26 What is the reason? Because Scripture says: And [the priest shall value] it;27 the word ‘it’ excludes28 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?29 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:30 Even a beast and even a bird.31 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. Simeon32 — what is the position? Is it a fact that they hold that if [the blemished dedicated animal] died, it is redeemed? If so, as they are, without waiting? 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. 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. majority of people who bring a sacrifice offer up a burnt-offering, which is a male. times when any individual could build an improvised altar for himself; v. Meg. 9b. pass (set apart), referring to a firstling. there is no need to deduce them from the above text, Thou shalt not sacrifice. priest. (Lev. XXVII, 11.) 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. presentation and valuation. 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.