Bekhorot

And Beth Hillel?1 — This is only the case in connection with an unblemished firstling.2 but with reference to a blemished firstling, the text says. The unclean and the clean person shall eat it alike.3 Now, if an unclean person who is forbidden to eat sacrifices of a minor grade may eat a firstling, how much more should a non-priest who may eat sacrifices of a minor grade be allowed to eat a firstling! But this argument can be refuted. The case of an unclean person is different, for he was permitted [and exempted] from the general rule in that he may officiate in the Temple service for the public.4 And Beth Hillel? — Does [the Baraitha] refer to Temple service? We are speaking of eating, and as regards eating, a non-priest has a better right! 5 ‘And R. Akiba permits even in the case of a gentile’. What is the reason of R. Akiba?6 — [Scripture says]: As the gazelle and as the hart:7 as the gazelle and the hart are permitted to be eaten by a gentile, so a firstling is permitted to be eaten by a gentile. And the other authority? — There are three texts [in Deuteronomy]8 mentioning the gazelle and the hart. One text is for what R. Isaac and R. Oshaiah taught.9 the other for what R. Eleazar ha-Kappar taught:10 and the last [to interpret as follows]: As a gazelle and hart are not subject to the law of the firstling and the priest's gift, so consecrated objects rendered unfit for sacrifices are not subject to the law of the firstling and the priest's gifts. Our Rabbis taught: A firstling must not be given to eat to menstruant women. These are the words of Beth Shammai, whereas Beth Hillel say: We are allowed to give it to eat to menstruant women. What is the reason of Beth Shammai? — Scripture writes [with reference to a firstling]: ‘And the flesh of them shall be thine [as the wave-breast and as the right shoulder]’:11 as there [in the case of the wave-breast etc.] menstruant women are forbidden to eat, so here menstruant women are forbidden to eat [the firstling]. And Beth Hillel?12 This is only the case with an unblemished firstling, but as regards a blemished firstling, ‘the unclean as well as the clean may eat it alike’. And Beth Shammai? — This is only the case [that an unclean person may eat it] where the impurity does not issue from the body, but where the impurity issues from the body, it is not so, for we find that the Divine Law makes a distinction between impurity which issues from the body and impurity which does not issue from the body. For we have learnt: The paschal lamb which is offered [by those] in a state of uncleanness must not be eaten by zabim, zaboth,13 menstruant women or confined women.14 And Beth Hillel? There, [zabim etc. are forbidden to eat the paschal lamb] because Scripture explicitly made this clear in the text: ‘By reason of a dead body’,15 whereas here in connection with a firstling, the text says: ‘The unclean person’ in general, implying, without any distinction. Our Rabbis taught: We must not flay an animal from the feet on a Holy Day;16 nor [on a weekday] when the animal is a firstborn [even blemished]; nor sacrifices rendered unfit.17 Now, we understand this as regards a Holy Day. because he undertakes a labour of which he can make no use [on that day], but as regards a firstling, who is the authority [for the law just quoted]? — Said R. Hisda: It is the view of Beth Shammai,18 who say: We must not give it to eat to menstruant women. ‘Nor sacrifices rendered unfit’. Who is the authority [for this]? — Said R. Hisda: It is the opinion of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon.19 For it has been taught: If he has two sin-offerings20 in front of him, one unblemished and the other blemished, the unblemished one shall be offered up and the blemished one shall be redeemed.21 If, however, the blemished one was slaughtered22 before the blood of the unblemished animal was sprinkled, it may be eaten;23 but [if it was slaughtered] after the blood of the unblemished animal was sprinkled, it is forbidden [to be eaten].24 R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon however says: Even if the flesh [of the blemished one] is already in the pot, if the blood of the unblemished one had been sprinkled, it is forbidden [to be eaten].25 And why does not R. Hisda interpret [the above Baraitha] altogether in accordance with Beth Shammai?26 — Perhaps Beth Shammai is stringent only with reference to a firstling, since its holiness is from birth, but in the case of sacrifices which have become unfit, whose holiness is not from birth, the case is different. animal. community may be performed by a priest even in a state of levitical uncleanness, there being a scriptural text, ‘In its appointed season’, which implies that even on the Sabbath or in a state of uncleanness the Paschal lamb may sometimes be brought. v. Pes. 66b. non-priest is forbidden. applies to those who were unclean through handling a corpse; Pes. 95b. unblemished firstling, flaying in this manner would be prohibited because he impairs the flesh for fear of cutting the skin, so the same ruling applies to a blemished firstling. animal was eaten, it is still permissible to eat the latter, once it has been permitted to be eaten when slaughtered. therefore condemned to die. flesh in the pot is considered as boiled, since it was not to be eaten till after the sprinkling of the other animal, it is forbidden to be eaten altogether, for it is like a sin-offering whose owner has already atoned for, retaining its holy status even after its slaughtering, v. Tem. 24a. to other unfit sacrifices after being slaughtered.