Bekhorot 14b (יד:) — the Talmud in English

Are they redeemed

the offspring—born before the redemption of the blemished animal, which became blemished before its consecration—even when they are

unblemished, or are they not redeemed

when they are

unblemished?

Come and hear

from that which was taught explicitly:

One who consecrates permanently blemished animals for the altar, and they give birth: the offspring are sold, and they do not require a blemish, since sanctity does not take effect upon them, because the secondary element should not be

the offspring, which are sanctified only by virtue of their mother

more stringent than the primary element

the mother, who is the source of the sanctity. The Gemara further infers from this beraita:

The reason is that the secondary element should not be more stringent than the primary one

This implies that it is specifically because of the reasoning that “the secondary element should not be more stringent than the primary one” that the offspring does not require a blemish for its redemption.

But

one who

consecrated a male

for its value

so that he would sell it and bring an olah with its value, it is

sanctified with kedushat haguf,

and because, since kedushat damim descended upon it, kedushat haguf descended upon it as well—for since it is fit to be a sacrifice,

this supports

this beraita

in support of Rava, who said: One who consecrates a male for its value, it is sanctified with kedushat haguf,

because, since kedushat damim descended upon it, kedushat haguf descended upon it as well, since it is fit to be a sacrifice.

We learned in the Mishna: “All consecrated animals whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration”...

“and one who slaughters them outside is exempt”:

One who consecrates, slaughters, sprinkles the blood of, or burns a blemished animal upon the altar is flogged.

As it is stated [Leviticus 22:18]: “Any man of the house of Israel and of the strangers in Israel who brings his offering for any of his vows or for any of his freewill offerings, which they bring to the Lord as an olah. For your acceptance, an unblemished male, from cattle, sheep, or goats. Anything that has a blemish you shall not bring, for it will not be acceptable for you.

And when a person offers a sacrifice of peace-offerings to the Lord, to fulfill a vow or as a freewill offering, whether from cattle or sheep, it shall be unblemished for acceptance; no blemish shall be in it. One that is blind, or broken, or gashed, or having a wart, or scurvy, or scab, you shall not bring these to the Lord, and you shall not place any of them upon the altar as a fire-offering to the Lord’.”

“An ox or a sheep that is deformed or stunted you may offer as a freewill offering, but it shall not be accepted for a vow. Anything crushed, or mutilated, or torn, or cut, you shall not offer to the Lord, nor shall you do this in your land. And from the hand of a foreigner you shall not offer the food of your God from any of these, for their corruption is in them; a blemish is in them, they shall not be accepted for you.”

The Sages derived from these verses a prohibition for one who consecrates, slaughters, sprinkles, or burns a blemished sacrifice.

And it is written further [Deuteronomy 17:1]: “You shall not slaughter for the Lord your God an ox or a sheep in which there is any blemish, any evil thing, for it is an abomination of the Lord your God.”

The statement that we learned, “and one who slaughters them outside is exempt,” means that one who slaughters these consecrated animals—whose blemish preceded their consecration—outside the Temple courtyard is exempt from karet. The reason for their exemption is that these are not offerings of the altar sanctified with kedushat haguf; rather, they possess only kedushat damim, and one is not liable for them on account of “slaughtering outside.” But:

Rabbi Elazar taught

he would read in our Mishna: “and one who slaughters them outside

is liable,”

but the intent of the Mishna is not to make him liable for karet on account of “slaughtering outside,” since they were not sanctified with kedushat haguf. Rather:

And Rabbi Elazar establishes it

Rabbi Elazar establishes our Mishna as referring to a case where he offered this animal

on a private altar

a private altar that each individual builds for himself, such as the altars of Manoah, Gideon, and Samuel, during the period when private altars were permitted, to teach that one is liable on account of slaughtering a blemished animal when he slaughters this animal on a private altar; and the “liable” that we learned means liability for lashes.

As Rabbi Elazar said: From where is it derived that one who slaughters a blemished animal

on a private altar during the period when private altars are permitted violates a prohibition? As it is stated: “

You shall not slaughter for the Lord

your God an ox or a sheep

in which there is a blemish”—

If

this verse

does not refer to the large altar

the communal altar that stood at Nob and Gibeon,

for

there is

already written

already: “

One that is blind or broken

you shall not offer these to the Lord,”

apply it

to this verse

to

include

a private altar,

for one who offers a blemished animal there during the period when private altars are permitted violates a prohibition. And we ask: From where do we know that this verse comes to add a prohibition concerning a private altar? Perhaps

say

the verse always refers to the large altar, and

if it does not refer to

the other

consecrated animals, apply it to a firstborn.

And it would be necessary for the verse to prohibit a blemished firstborn, because

it might enter your mind to say:

Since the firstborn is sacred

Since the firstborn is sanctified

the firstborn, so that shearing and labor are prohibited with it even

when it is blemished

from the outset, as stated in our Mishna: “except for a firstborn and the animal tithe”; if so,

it should likewise be offered when it is blemished—

The verse comes to teach us

the redundant verse,

that it is not so.

If so, from where do we know that the verse came to include a private altar?

The members of the academy said

to resolve this: It is not necessary to include a blemished firstborn, since

with regard to a firstborn it is explicitly written

a prohibition concerning a blemished animal, as it says in the section concerning the firstborn [Deuteronomy 15]: “Every firstborn that is born in your cattle and in your flocks, the male you shall consecrate to the Lord your God; and if it has a blemish,

lame or blind,

any bad blemish,

you shall not slaughter it

for the Lord your God.”

We nevertheless ask:

say

the verse did not come to include a private altar. Rather:

if it does not refer to

the other

consecrated animals, apply it to the animal tithe

—and the verse would be needed to prohibit a blemished animal tithe, because

it might enter your mind to say: Since the animal tithe is sanctified

the tithe even

with its blemish—

which it had at the time of its consecration—for shearing and labor to be prohibited with it,

for

there is

written

in the section concerning the animal tithe [Leviticus 27]: “Every tithe of cattle or flock, every tenth animal that passes under the rod, shall be holy to the Lord.

He shall not examine

he shall not inspect

between good and bad, or between bad and good,”

and this teaches that he may not select and remove the superior animal; rather, kedushat haguf takes effect upon both an unblemished and a blemished animal, if so,

it should likewise be offered with its blemish

it should be offered with its blemish, like an unblemished tithe animal,

the verse comes to teach us that this is not so;

rather, the owners eat it. If so, from where do we know that the verse came to prohibit a blemished animal on a private altar?!

The members of the academy said

to resolve this:

the animal tithe likewise

does not require a verse to teach us a prohibition concerning a blemished animal, since

the term “passing” is derived by verbal analogy

“Every one that passes under the rod”; “And you shall cause every firstborn to pass over to the Lord”

from the firstborn,

which is prohibited when it is blemished.

We nevertheless ask: From where do we know that the verse “you shall not slaughter” comes to teach about one who slaughters a blemished animal on a private altar? Perhaps

say: apply it to the substitute of consecrated animals

to prohibit its slaughter and offering when it is blemished. And the verse would be needed to teach us this, because

it might enter your mind to say:

Since the sanctity of

the substitute is kedushat haguf, even

when it is blemished, for

there is

written

[Leviticus 27]: “And if an animal, from which an offering is brought to the Lord,

he shall not exchange it or substitute another for it

good for bad [an unblemished animal for a blemished one] or bad for good; and if he does substitute an animal for an animal [including good for bad], then both it and its substitute shall be holy.” Thus even the inferior one becomes sanctified through substitution. If so,

it should likewise be offered when it is blemished; the verse comes to teach us

“You shall not slaughter”

that it is not so

he may not offer it when it is blemished?!

And we answer: A special verse is not needed to prohibit a blemished substitute, since

the verse says

“both it and its substitute shall be”,

it compares its substitute to it

to the animal for which it was substituted:

just as it,

when it is

blemished, may not

be slaughtered or offered,

so too, its substitute, when blemished, may not.

It is therefore necessarily the case that the verse “you shall not slaughter” came to include a private altar.

Rabbi Zeira challenges

what was explained, that “you shall not slaughter” came to include one who slaughters on a private altar:

But

say: apply the verse

to the verse “you shall not slaughter”

to the offspring

that are blemished, of

unblemished

consecrated animals, and the verse would be needed to teach us this, because

it might enter your mind to say: Since the offspring are sanctified

with kedushat haguf, even

when they are blemished

at the time they become sanctified,

by virtue of their mothers

who are sanctified with kedushat haguf, if so,

when they are blemished, they should likewise be offered;

therefore

the verse comes to teach us

that they may not be offered. And from where do we know that the verse came to include a private altar?!

He said

he answered:

Rava: It has already been determined

for the law governing the offspring of consecrated animals

by the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

That is, we have already learned from their words another source for the offspring of consecrated animals, namely, that they are forbidden for slaughter and offering even when they have a blemish.

As the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

It is written [Deuteronomy 12:26]: “

Only your sacred offerings

that you will have, and your vows, you shall take and bring to the place that the Lord will choose,” and the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael explained: “

Only your sacred offerings” –

these are substitutions. “

That you will have” –

these are offspring.

And if so,

the verse juxtaposed them

“and your vows”;

the verse equated them with a vow: Just as a vow [concerning] a blemished animal –

no; these too are not [permitted] when blemished.

And if so, necessarily the verse came to include the prohibition against slaughtering and offering a blemished animal on a private altar during the period when private altars were permitted.

We learned in the Mishna: All consecrated animals whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration

cannot effect substitution:

the Gemara asks:

What is the reason?

And it explains:

As the verse states [

Leviticus 27:9]: “And if it is an animal from which they may bring an offering to the Lord, all that he gives of it to the Lord shall be sacred.

He shall not exchange it, nor substitute it

a good [unblemished] one for a bad [blemished] one, or a bad one for a good one; and if he does substitute animal for animal, then both it and its substitute shall be sacred.” And why did the verse need to state that one may not exchange a good animal for a bad one? After all:

Now, if with regard to

a bad one for a good one

you say

[the verse states] that

he may not

substitute it,

a good one for a bad one

does it need to be stated

that he may not substitute it?!

Rather,

the verse comes to teach:

An animal that was originally good,

which was consecrated while unblemished and afterward became blemished and bad,

can effect substitution

[as stated in the verse, “a bad one for a good one”], but

an animal that was originally bad,

whose blemish preceded its consecration, as in the case of our Mishna,

cannot effect substitution.

We learned in the Mishna: All consecrated animals whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration...

and if they die, they are redeemed:

It is written [Leviticus 27:11]: “And if it is any impure animal [that is, one with a blemish] that may not be offered as an offering to the Lord, he shall present the animal before the koen. And the koen shall assess it, whether good or bad; according to the assessment of the koen, so shall it be.”

And we learned in tractate Temura 32a: Both offerings of the altar and property consecrated for Temple maintenance... and if they die, they are buried. Rabbi Shimon says: Property consecrated for Temple maintenance, if it dies, is redeemed.

And Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish disputed there regarding the explanation of their disagreement:

Rabbi Yohanan’s view: According to the Rabbis, both offerings of the altar [that became blemished] and property consecrated for Temple maintenance are included in the requirement of presentation and valuation. “And if they die, they shall be buried” applies both to offerings of the altar and to property consecrated for Temple maintenance, which require presentation and valuation; therefore, if they die—when they are no longer capable of presentation and valuation—they are buried. But according to Rabbi Shimon, offerings of the altar are included in the requirement of presentation and valuation, whereas property consecrated for Temple maintenance does not require presentation and valuation, as is implied by Rabbi Shimon’s wording, since his statement refers only to property consecrated for Temple maintenance. And with regard to consecrated animals whose blemish preceded their consecration, everyone agrees that presentation and valuation are not required.

Reish Lakish’s view: According to the Rabbis, property consecrated for Temple maintenance was included in the requirement of presentation and valuation, whereas offerings of the altar were not included in the requirement of presentation and valuation [and what we learned, “and if they die, they shall be buried,” applies only to property consecrated for Temple maintenance]. But according to Rabbi Shimon, offerings of the altar are included, while property consecrated for Temple maintenance does not require presentation and valuation. And with regard to consecrated animals whose blemish preceded their consecration, everyone agrees that presentation and valuation are not required.

The continuation of the sugya clarifies whose view Rav, the author of the statement before us, follows.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: This

that we learned in our Mishna concerning consecrated animals whose blemish preceded their consecration, that they may be redeemed even after death,

is the statement of Rabbi Shimon

itself,

as he says: Offerings of the altar were included in the requirement of presentation and valuation,

but

property consecrated for Temple maintenance was not included in the requirement of presentation and valuation,

and it may therefore be redeemed even when dead, since it is impossible to present it before the koen.

As we learned

in tractate Temura [32a]:

Rabbi Shimon says: Property consecrated for Temple maintenance, if it dies, is redeemed –

And from Rabbi Shimon’s statement that property consecrated for Temple maintenance is redeemed without presentation and valuation, we learn that the verse is speaking of blemished offerings of the altar and requires presentation and valuation,

and

nevertheless

Rabbi Shimon concedes that an animal blemished from the outset is redeemed

even if it dies, and even though it is an offering of the altar, because the status of an animal blemished from the outset is that, since it possesses only monetary sanctity, it is like property consecrated for Temple maintenance, which is redeemed without presentation and valuation. This is what we learned in our Mishna concerning consecrated animals whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration: If they die, they are redeemed.

What is the reason

for Rabbi Shimon’s view that property consecrated for Temple maintenance and animals that became blemished before their consecration do not require presentation and valuation?

Because

the verse states: “

And the koen shall assess

it.”

“It”

serves to exclude an animal blemished from the outset,

and to exclude property consecrated for Temple maintenance.

But the Rabbis say:

Consecrated animals whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration,

if they die –

they are buried,

because they are incapable of presentation and valuation.

Who are the Rabbis—

who are the authorities who hold that consecrated animals whose blemish preceded their consecration require presentation and valuation?

It is the tanna of the school of Levi!

As the tanna of the school of Levi taught:

Everything –

both offerings of the altar and property consecrated for Temple maintenance –

was included in the requirement of presentation and valuation, even an animal blemished from the outset.

And according to his view, if they die, they are buried.

And likewise the tanna of the school of Levi taught in his baraita

[and this is how Levi taught in his baraita]:

Even a wild animal,

which is not offered on the altar, and

even a bird,

with regard to which a blemish does not disqualify it, and whose redemption is due to the fact that it was initially consecrated for sale for the needs of the altar or of Temple maintenance—all of these are redeemed without presentation and valuation.

And we raise an objection according to the tanna of the school of Levi:

But it is written “

it,”

which implies an exclusion; and what does “it” come to exclude, since everything requires presentation and valuation?

And the Gemara concludes: Indeed,

“it” –

is difficult according to the tanna of the school of Levi.

And we raise an objection: Since we say

that the Rabbis who disagree with the ruling of our Mishna are the tanna of the school of Levi, it follows that

but the Rabbis

[in the Mishna in tractate Temura 32a]

who disagree with Rabbi Shimon

regarding the law of presentation and valuation,

what

do they hold with regard to consecrated animals whose blemish preceded their consecration?!

Is it likewise the case that if they die, they are redeemed

[they too agree that if they die, they are redeemed], and therefore we do not establish our Mishna in accordance with their view?!

If so: