Bekhorot

[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.1 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?2 — We can answer: If this is so, then, let the [Mishnah] state: If they become trefah,3 they shall be buried.4 Or if you choose [another solution]. I can say that Rab in fact holds with R. Johanan,5 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 gazelle6 [and as a hart]; as a gazelle is exempt from [the law of] the firstling,7 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.8 The Master said: ‘I would then exclude the firstling but not [the priestly] gifts’! Now, what is the difference?9 — 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.10 Hence Scripture states ‘A hart’. Said R. Papa to Abaye: Why not [say that] just as the law concerning the killing of the young11 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.12 — 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? — But13 did you not say that the [word] ‘ak’ implies ‘but not their fat’?14 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’.15 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.16 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’?17 — 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,18 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. whereas the Rabbis hold the reverse view, according to the interpretation of R. Simeon b. Lakish. valuation. 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. 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. as the text says: The unclean and the clean shall eat of them alike, and they still retain some measure of holiness. suitable for sacrifice on the altar. 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?