בכורות 15 — Soncino English Talmud

¹[in connection with Rab's observation above], what should be said is: This is the teaching of R. Simeon and those who dispute with him? — I can answer: Rab holds with R. Simeon the son of Lakish, who explained that according to the Rabbis [who differ with R. Simeon] objects dedicated for the keeping of the Temple in repair were [at first] included in [the law of] presentation and valuation, whereas objects dedicated for the altar were not included in [the law of] presentation and valuation. Therefore the Mishnah can not be explained [to agree completely] with the views of the Rabbis. For it states in the later clause: AND IF THEY DIED, THEY SHALL BE BURIED. But whence can we prove that the reason [of the Mishnah] why they shall be buried is because they are subject to the law of presentation and valuation? Perhaps the reason is because we may not redeem dedicated sacrifices in order to give food to dogs? — We can answer: If this is so, then, let the [Mishnah] state: If they become trefah, they shall be buried. Or if you choose [another solution]. I can say that Rab in fact holds with R. Johanan, and read [in the passage above]. This is the teaching both of R. Simeon and of those who dispute with him. BUT IF THEIR DEDICATION PRECEDED etc. Whence is this proved? — Our Rabbis have taught: [Scripture says]: Howbeit as the gazelle [and as a hart]; as a gazelle is exempt from [the law of] the firstling, so dedicated sacrifices which have become unfit for the altar are also exempt from [the law of] the firstling. I would then exclude the firstling and not the priestly gifts! The text [therefore] states, ‘A hart’; as a hart is exempt from [the law of] a firstling and from [the duty of priestly] gifts, so blemished dedicated sacrifices are exempt from the law of the firstling and of [the priestly] gifts. Am I to say that just as the fat of the gazelle and a hart is permitted to be used, so the fat of [blemished dedicated sacrifices] is also permitted to be used? [For this reason] the text states ‘ak’ [‘howbeit’], which intimates a distinction. The Master said: ‘I would then exclude the firstling but not [the priestly] gifts’! Now, what is the difference? — I exclude the firstling, because its law does not equally apply in all cases, whereas I do not exclude [the priestly] gifts, as their law applies equally in all cases. Hence Scripture states ‘A hart’. Said R. Papa to Abaye: Why not [say that] just as the law concerning the killing of the young with its mother on the same day does not apply to a gazelle and a hart so the law concerning the killing of the mother on the same day does not apply to dedicated sacrifices which have become unfit for the altar? — He replied to him: With what will you compare [blemished dedicated sacrifices, to render them exempt from the law regarding the killing of the young with its mother on the same day]? If you compare them with unconsecrated animals, then the law concerning the killing of the young with its mother on the same day should apply to them! And if you compare them with dedicated sacrifices, here [also] the law regarding the killing of the young with its mother on the same day should apply to them. — He replied to him: If so, then in regard to the fat [of blemished dedicated animals], why not say likewise, as follows: With what will you compare them? If with unconsecrated animals, their fat is forbidden, and if with dedicated sacrifices, their fat is forbidden? — But did you not say that the [word] ‘ak’ implies ‘but not their fat’? Then similarly adduce the word ‘ak’ as implying, ‘but the law regarding the killing of the young with its mother on the same day, is not [included in the analogy]’. Raba said: The word ‘ak’ serves [to exclude from the analogy] the law concerning the killing of the young with its mother on the same day, while as regards the fat of blemished dedicated sacrifices, we derive [the prohibition] from the words ‘the blood thereof’, for it is written: ‘Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof’. What do the words ‘The blood thereof’ mean? You can hardly say that it actually means ‘the blood thereof’. For granting that it is only as the blood of the gazelle and a hart — is then the blood of a gazelle and a hart permitted? The words ‘The blood thereof’ then refer to its fat. And why does not Scripture expressly write ‘Its fat’? — If the Divine Law had written the word ‘fat’, I might have assumed that both the analogy and the scriptural verse helped [to define the nature of the prohibition of the fat]. The analogy [between the word ‘fat’ and the words ‘as a gazelle and a hart’], helped to exclude it from [the punishment of] excision, for Scripture imposes the punishment of excision only on one who eats the fat of an animal, as it says: For whosoever eateth the fat of the animal. And the scriptural verse also helped to make [the eating of the fat of blemished sacrifices equivalent to the breaking of] a mere prohibition. Therefore the Divine Law used the expression ‘the blood thereof’, to teach you that as the eating of its blood is punishable with excision, so the eating of its fat is punishable with excision. But does not the Tanna [above in the Baraitha] say that the word ‘ak’ implies ‘but not its fat’? — This is what [the Tanna] intends to say: If there were not a text ‘The blood thereof’. I might have said that [the word] ‘ak’ implies ‘but not its fat’. Now, however, that Scripture says ‘The blood thereof’, the word ‘ak’ serves [to exclude from the analogy] the law regarding the killing of the young with its mother [on the same day]. AND THEY DO NOT BECOME UNCONSECRATED. Whence is this derived — Our Rabbis taught. Scripture says: Notwithstanding thou mayest kill, implying, but not shear. [The text continues further], ‘flesh’, implying. ‘but not milk’. ‘And eat’, implying, ‘but not for dogs’. Hence we infer that we do not redeem dedicated sacrifices to give food to the dogs.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ

^ᵃnote:From which we may infer that objects consecrated for the altar are included in the law of presentation and valuation, whereas the Rabbis hold the reverse view, according to the interpretation of R. Simeon b. Lakish.
^ᵇnote:And not because the Mishnah holds that objects dedicated for the altar are included in the law of presentation and valuation.
^ᶜnote:V. Glos.
^ᵈnote:From which I could infer that, although it was possible to make presentation and valuation here, nevertheless since they were only fit for dogs, they must be buried. But since the Mishnah states, ‘IF THEY DIED etc.’, I deduce that the reason is because presentation and valuation cannot be carried out.
^ᵉnote:Who says in Tem. 32b that according to the Rabbis, both objects dedicated for the altar and objects dedicated for keeping the Temple in repair were included in the law of presentation and valuation, and that an animal blemished from the start may be redeemed.
^ᶠnote:Deut. XII, 22. And Scripture is dealing here with dedicated sacrifices which received their blemish after dedication, as the text says: The unclean and the clean shall eat of them alike, and they still retain some measure of holiness.
^ᵍnote:For Scripture says: All the firstling males that come of thy herd and of thy flock, thou shalt sanctify. (Deut. XV, 19.)
^ʰnote:I.e., it warns us that the analogy is not complete and therefore the fat is forbidden.
^ⁱnote:Deriving the limitation of a firstling from the first text, and requiring another text to exclude the priestly gifts.
^ʲnote:For the law of the firstling only applies to a male, whereas the duty of the priestly gifts applies to females as well.
^ᵏnote:Lev XXII, 28.
^ˡnote:v. Hul. 78a.
^ᵐnote:[This appears to be Abaye's reply].
^ⁿnote:V. supra n. 1.
^ᵒnote:Deut. XV, 23. The verse deals here with the case of a firstling with a blemish.
^ᵖnote:Lev. VII, 25. It is also understandable that excision should be incurred only for eating the fat of an animal, as it is suitable for sacrifice on the altar.
^ᵠnote:I.e., it excludes its fat from the analogy. How can Rab, therefore, maintain that the text ‘ak’ excludes from the analogy the law of killing the young with its mother on the same day, seeing that the Baraitha above says that ‘ak’ excludes the eating of the fat?
^ʳnote:Deut. XII, 15.

²Some there are who say: ‘Thou mayest kill and eat’: The permission of eating of blemished dedicated sacrifices is only from the time of their killing and thenceforward. We may, however, redeem dedicated sacrifices to give food to dogs. THEIR OFFSPRING AND THEIR MILK ARE FORBIDDEN AFTER THEIR REDEMPTION. How is this to be understood? Shall I say that they became pregnant and gave birth after their redemption? Why [in that case should they be forbidden]? [The offspring] are [as] the gazelle and a hart! Rather what is meant is that they became pregnant before their redemption and give birth after their redemption. But if [they were born] before their redemption, they would indeed become holy. Whence is this proved? For our Rabbis taught: [Scripture says]: ‘Whether male’: this includes the offspring [of a peace-offering]. [It goes on] ‘or a female’; this includes an animal [exchanged for a peace-offering]. Now I can only infer from these unblemished offspring and unblemished exchanged animals. Whence, however, can I derive blemished offspring and blemished exchanged animals? When Scripture says: ‘Whether a male’, it includes even blemished offspring and the text ‘or a female’, includes an exchanged blemished animal. Those young [which were In embryo before their redemption] and were born after their redemption — what shall become of them? Concerning those born before their redemption there is a difference of opinion. There is one authority who says they are so far holy as to be offered up, and there is another authority who says they are only so far holy as to be left to graze. But what is to be done with [the offspring] born after their redemption. — Said R. Huna: We put them in a vault and they die [of hunger]. For what are we to do? Shall we offer them up on the altar? They derive their status from a holiness which has been cancelled. Shall we redeem them? They are not qualified to receive redemption. In the West [Palestine] it was stated in the name of R. Hanina: Before their redemption he consecrates them for that particular sacrifice. ‘Before their redemption’? Does this mean to say that they are capable of redemption? Explain rather [as follows]: Before the redemption of their mother, he consecrated them for that particular sacrifice. And what is the reason? — Said R. Levi: It is a preventive measure, lest he should rear of them flocks. Rabina asked of R. Shesheth: May he consecrate [the offspring] for any sacrifice that he chose? — He replied: He may not consecrate them, [except for the particular sacrifice of the mother]. What is the reason? — He said to him: There is an analogy between the words ‘within thy gates’ [used in connection with blemished dedicated sacrifices] and the words ‘within thy gates’ [used in connection with the firstling]: just as a firstling does not become consecrated after birth for any sacrifice which he chooses, because Scripture writes: Howbeit the firstling among the beasts which is born a firstling to the Lord, no man shall sanctify it, so these young ones do not become consecrated for any sacrifice he chooses. It has been taught in accordance with the opinion of R. Shesheth: Dedicated sacrifices which became permanently blemished before their dedication and were redeemed are subject to the law of the firstling and of the [priestly] gifts; whether before their redemption or after their redemption. one who shears them and works with them does not receive forty lashes; whether before their redemption or after their redemption, the law of substitute does not apply to them; before their redemption. the law of Sacrilege applies to them, but after their redemption it does not; their offspring are unconsecrated [even if in embryo before redemption and born after redemption]; they are redeemed unblemished and become consecrated for any sacrifice he chooses. The general rule in this matter is: They are like unconsecrated animals in all particulars. The only religious duty which applies to them is that of valuing them [for redemption]. But if their dedication preceded their blemish, or if a transitory blemish [preceded] their dedication and after that there appeared on them a permanent blemish, and they were redeemed, they are exempt from the law of the firstling and from the [priestly] gifts; whether before their redemption or after their redemption, one who shears and works them receives forty lashes; whether before their redemption or after their redemption, the law of substitute applies to them; before their redemption. Sacrilege applies to them, but not after their redemption; their offspring are holy [if in embryo before redemption]; they are not redeemed unblemished; and they do not become consecrated for any sacrifice that he chooses. The general rule in the matter is that they are like consecrated animals in all particulars. You have only the permission to eat them. Now the general rule of the first part [of the Baraitha above] is stated in order to include the rule that one who slaughters them without [the Temple Court] is exempt [from the punishment of excision]. The general rule of the second part [of the Baraitha]^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ

^ˢnote:This excludes milking and shearing, and is deduced from the proximity of the texts referring to killing and eating. The word ‘flesh’ is on this view not expounded.
^ᵗnote:As there is no special text to prohibit this.
^ᵘnote:I.e. they are hullin (unconsecrated animals).
^ᵛnote:Lev. III, 1, with reference to peace.offerings. The whole verse is superfluous, for unless it expressly stated that a peace-offering must be a male, as is the case with a burnt-offering. I should have known that there was no restriction as regards the sex of the animal.
^ʷnote:That it is offered as a peace-offering.
^ˣnote:V. n. 6.
^ʸnote:Whose dedication preceded their blemish.
^ᶻnote:Until they become blemished. Then they are sold and their money is devoted for a freewill-offering. The reason for delaying until a blemish appears is because unblemished animals are not redeemed.
^ᵃᵃnote:The offspring possess two disqualifications. First, they are born from a mother which though once fit for the altar, has now lost its sanctity, owing to its blemish. Secondly, since the offspring were born after the mother's redemption, they cannot be invested with any sanctity so as to be sacrificed on the altar.
^ᵃᵇnote:For since they are redeemed through their mother, they retain no sanctity to enable redemption to render them hullin.
^ᵃᶜnote:That of the mother, and this holiness helps to make them capable of redemption.
^ᵃᵈnote:While she was still pregnant and before their birth, the offspring received the holiness of their mother's dedication, and in this way redemption, after a blemish appears on them, is required, as their mother's redemption did not cancel their sanctity.
^ᵃᵉnote:Of. R. Huna above, that they are condemned to die. Why not devise a method of redemption as R. Hanina suggests.
^ᵃᶠnote:If there were a remedy for the offspring of blemished dedicated offerings, we might raise flocks of these blemished animals, delay the redemption of their mothers, and even be led to eat them without the required redemption. Another explanation (quoted by Rashi) is: What is the reason of the authority who says that we condemn the offspring to die, and also, what is the reason of the other authority who maintains that we consecrate them for a sacrifice? Why did the Rabbis trouble in the matter at all? Could not the offspring be left in their forbidden state? The answer is that we fear lest one might raise flocks, that these offspring will in turn give birth to others and we might be led to commit an offence, whereas after redemption, we do not entertain any fears, as the offspring then are hullin. Still another explanation (quoted by Rashi) is: Why does the Mishnah say that the offspring are forbidden after redemption, seeing that their mother's holiness has been cancelled? And the reply given is because, if we permit the offspring to be used, we might raise flocks of blemished dedicated sacrifices for the sake of the offspring born after redemption and, thus might be led to transgress the law concerning shearing and working.
^ᵃᵍnote:Of blemished dedicated sacrifices.
^ᵃʰnote:Deut. XII, 21.
^ᵃⁱnote:Ibid. XV, 22.
^ᵃʲnote:Lev. XXVII, 26. The text continuing, No man shall sanctify it, indicates that no other holiness except that of a firstling attaches to it.
^ᵃᵏnote:To make an inappropriate use of a sacred object is Sacrilege (v. Lev. X, 15) and since he benefits therefrom, it is no worse a case than using an object dedicated to the keeping of the Temple in repair.
^ᵃˡnote:If they were pregnant and gave birth before their redemption.
^ᵃᵐnote:The only restrictive enactment is that of redeeming the animal with money.
^ᵃⁿnote:For they are compared with ‘a gazelle and a hart’, but the shearing of them is forbidden.
^ᵃᵒnote:Which is the view of R. Shesheth.