Bekhorot 14b — the Talmud in English

Are they redeemed

the offspring—that were born before the redemption of the blemished female animal that had become 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 explicitly taught in a beraita:

One who consecrates permanently blemished animals for the altar, and they give birth, they are sold and do not require a blemish, for sanctity does not take effect upon them, so that the secondary

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

may not be more stringent than the principal

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

The reason is: so that the secondary may not be more stringent than the principal

This implies that specifically because of the reasoning “the secondary may not be more stringent than the principal,” the offspring does not require a blemish for its redemption

but

one who

consecrated a male

for its value

in order to sell it and bring an elevation-offering with its value—is

sacred with sanctity of the body,

and because, through the fact that monetary sanctity descended upon it, sanctity of the body descended upon it [since monetary sanctity descended upon it, sanctity of the body descended upon it], since it is fit for an offering.

This supports him

this beraita

to Rava, who said: One who consecrated a male for its value is sacred with sanctity of the body,

because, through the fact that monetary sanctity descended upon it, sanctity of the body descended upon it, since it is fit for an offering.

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

and one who slaughters them outside is exempt:

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

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

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

And an ox or a sheep with an extended or contracted limb, you may make it a freewill offering, but for a vow it will not be accepted. And one crushed, or smashed, or torn, or cut, you shall not bring to the Lord, and in your land you shall not do. And from the hand of a foreigner you shall not bring the food of your God from any of these, for their corruption is in them; a blemish is in them, they will not be accepted for you.”

And the Sages learned from these verses a prohibition for one who consecrates, slaughters, sprinkles, or burns a blemished offering.

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

This that we learned, “and one who slaughters them outside is exempt,” means to exempt one who slaughters these sacred animals—which had become blemished before their consecration—outside the courtyard from karet. And the reason for their exemption is that these are not altar-sacrifices sacred with sanctity of the body, but they have only monetary sanctity, and one is not liable for them on account of “slaughtering outside.” But:

Rabbi Elazar taught

he used to teach in our Mishna: “and one who slaughters them outside

is liable,”

but the intention of the Mishna is not to make him liable for karet on account of “slaughtering outside,” for they did not acquire sanctity of the body. Rather:

And he establishes it

Rabbi Elazar establishes our Mishna when he offered this animal

upon a private altar

an altar that each individual builds for himself, such as the altar of Manoah, Gideon, and Samuel, at a time when private altars were permitted to teach that one is liable on account of “slaughtering a blemished animal” when he slaughters this animal upon a private altar, and “is liable,” which we learned, means flogging.

For Rabbi Elazar said: From where [do we know] that one who slaughters a blemished animal

upon a private altar at a time when private altars are permitted is subject to a prohibition? As it is stated:

“You shall not slaughter for the Lord

your God an ox or a sheep

in which there shall be a blemish”—

If

this verse

does not concern the great altar

the public altar that was in Nob and Gibeon,

for

it is

already written

“

anything blind or broken

you shall not bring these to the Lord,”

assign

this verse

to

include

a private altar, where one who offers a blemished animal there at a time when private altars are permitted violates a prohibition.

And we challenge: From where do we know that this verse comes to add a prohibition concerning a private altar? After all, say

that

this verse always deals with the great altar, and

if it does not concern

the other

sacred animals, assign it to the firstborn.

And we needed to prohibit a blemished firstborn, because

it might enter your mind to say:

Since the firstborn is sacred

to be prohibited in shearing and labor

even when it is

inherently blemished [as is explained in our Mishna: “except for the firstborn and the tithe”], if so,

it should likewise be offered when it is blemished—

This teaches us

the superfluous verse

that

it does not.

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

They said

the members of the academy to resolve it: There is no need to include a blemished firstborn, for

the firstborn is explicitly written with regard to it

a prohibition concerning a blemished animal, for it says in the section of 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 when there is a blemish in it,

lame or blind,

any bad blemish,

you shall not slaughter it

for the Lord your God.”

We still challenge:

And say

the verse did not come to include a private altar, but

if it does not concern

the other

sacred animals, assign it to the animal tithe

and the verse was needed to prohibit a blemished tithe because

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

even

with its blemish—

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

for

it is

written

in the section of the animal tithe [Leviticus 27]: “And every tithe of cattle and flock, every tenth animal that passes under the rod, shall be sacred to the Lord.

He shall not inspect

he shall not examine

between good and bad and between bad and good,”

and this is to teach that he may not select and remove the superior one; and whether unblemished or blemished, sanctity of the body takes effect upon it, if so,

it should likewise be offered with its blemish

he should offer it with its blemish, like an unblemished tithe;

this teaches us that it does not,

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

They said

the members of the academy to resolve it:

The tithe too

did not require a verse to teach us a prohibition concerning a blemished animal, for

a verbal analogy of “passing” and “passing”

“Whatever passes under the rod”; “And you shall cause every firstborn of the womb to pass to the Lord”

from the firstborn,

which is prohibited when it is blemished.

We still challenge: From where do we know that the verse “You shall not slaughter” came to teach regarding one who slaughters a blemished animal upon a private altar? After all,

say: assign it to the substitution of sacred animals

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

it might enter your mind to say:

Since sanctity

of the body takes effect upon the substitution even

when it is blemished, for

it is

written

“And if it is an animal from which they offer an offering to the Lord,

he shall not exchange it and he shall not substitute 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], both it and its substitution shall be sacred”—thus, even the bad becomes sacred through substitution. If so,

it should likewise be offered when it is blemished; this teaches us

“You shall not slaughter”

that it does not

he may offer it when it is blemished?!

And we resolve: A special verse was not needed to prohibit a blemished substitution, for it is already

stated by the verse

“And it and its substitution”,

it compares its substitution to it

the animal that was substituted,

just as it

when it is

blemished may not

be slaughtered or offered,

so too its substitution, when blemished, may not.

And necessarily the verse “You shall not slaughter” came to include a private altar.

Rabbi Zeira challenges

what was explained, that “You shall not slaughter” comes to include one who slaughters upon a private altar:

After all,

say, assign it

the verse “You shall not slaughter”

to the offspring

of blemished animals of

unblemished sacred animals,

and the verse was needed to teach us this because

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

with sanctity of the body even

when they are blemished

at the time they became sacred

along with their mothers,

who have sanctity of the body, if so,

when they are blemished they too may be offered,

therefore

this teaches us

the verse 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 established

for the law of the offspring of consecrated offerings

by the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael. That is to say, we have already learned from their words another source for the offspring of consecrated offerings, that they are forbidden for slaughter and offering with their blemish.

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

For the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael:

It is written [Deuteronomy 12:26]: “

Only your holy things that you will have and your vows

, you shall take and come to the place that the Lord will choose,” and the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael explained: “

Only your holy things” —

these are substitutions. “

That you will have” —

these are the offspring.

And if so,

the verse juxtaposed to them

“and your vows”;

the verse equated them with a vow: just as a vow [which concerns] an animal with a blemish —

no, these too, [when they are] an animal with a blemish, no.

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

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

do not make a substitution:

the Gemara asks:

What is the reason?

And it explains:

For the verse says [

Leviticus 27:9]: “And if it is an animal from which they offer an offering to the Lord, whatever he gives of it to the Lord shall be holy.

He shall not exchange it and he shall not substitute

it, good [unblemished] for bad [blemished] or bad for good; and if he does substitute an animal for an animal, it and its substitution shall be holy.” And why did the verse need to say that he may not exchange good for bad? Is it not so that:

Now, “

bad for good”

you say [

the verse says] that

he may not

substitute it; “

good for bad”

does it need to be said

that he may not substitute it?!

Rather,

the verse came to teach:

one that was good from the outset,

which was an unblemished consecrated offering and afterward became blemished and became bad,

does make a substitution [

as the verse says, “bad for good”], but

one that was bad from the outset,

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

does not make a substitution.

We learned in the Mishna: All consecrated offerings 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] from which they do not offer an offering to the Lord, then he shall stand the animal before the priest. And the priest shall assess it, whether good or bad; according to the assessment of the priest, so shall it be.”

And we learned in tractate Temura 32a: Whether offerings of the altar or offerings for the maintenance of the Temple… and if they die, they are buried. Rabbi Shimon says: Offerings for the maintenance of the Temple, if they die, they are redeemed.

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

The view of Rabbi Yohanan: According to the Rabbis, both offerings of the altar [into which a blemish fell] and offerings for the maintenance of the Temple are included in presentation and valuation; “and if they die, they are buried” applies both to offerings of the altar and to offerings for the maintenance of the Temple, since they require presentation and valuation, and therefore, if they die—since they are not subject to presentation and valuation—they are buried. But according to Rabbi Shimon, offerings of the altar are included in presentation and valuation, whereas offerings for the maintenance of the Temple do not require presentation and valuation, as is implied by Rabbi Shimon’s wording, for his statement refers only to offerings for the maintenance of the Temple. And with regard to consecrated offerings whose blemish preceded their consecration, everyone agrees that presentation and valuation are not required.

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

And further on in the discussion it is explained according to whose view Rav, the author of the statement before us, holds.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: This

which we learned in our Mishna, concerning consecrated offerings whose blemish preceded their consecration, that they are redeemed even after death,

is the statement of Rabbi Shimon

it is,

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

but

offerings for the maintenance of the Temple were not included in presentation and valuation,

and they are redeemed even when dead, since it is impossible to stand them before the priest.

For we learned

in tractate Temura [32a]:

Rabbi Shimon says: Offerings for the maintenance of the Temple, if they die, they are redeemed—

And from the fact that Rabbi Shimon said that offerings for the maintenance of the Temple are redeemed without presentation and valuation, we learn that the verse speaks of blemished offerings of the altar and requires presentation and valuation of them,

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, and because the law of an animal blemished from the outset is that, since it has only monetary sanctity, it is like offerings for the maintenance of the Temple, which are redeemed without presentation and valuation. And this is what we learned in our Mishna concerning consecrated offerings whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration: if they die, they are redeemed.

What is the reason

of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that offerings for the maintenance of the Temple and offerings that became blemished before their consecration do not require presentation and valuation?

Because

the verse says: “

And the priest shall assess

it.” “

It”

excludes an animal blemished from the outset,

and excludes offerings for the maintenance of the Temple.

But the Rabbis say:

Consecrated offerings whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration,

if they die—

they are buried,

because they are not subject to presentation and valuation.

Who are the Rabbis,

who hold concerning consecrated offerings whose blemish preceded their consecration that they require presentation and valuation?

It is the tanna of the school of Levi!

For the tanna of the school of Levi:

Everything—

both offerings of the altar and offerings for the maintenance of the Temple—

was included in 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 in his Mishna [

and this is how Levi taught in his beraita]:

even a wild animal

that is not offered on the altar, and

even a bird

in which a blemish does not disqualify, and its redemption is because from the outset it was consecrated in order to be sold for the needs of the altar or for the maintenance of the Temple—all of these are redeemed without presentation and valuation.

And we challenge the view of 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 conclusion of the Gemara is: Indeed, “

it”—

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

And we challenge: From what we say

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

But the Rabbis

in the Mishna in Temura 32a,

who disagree with Rabbi Shimon

concerning the law of presentation and valuation,

what

do they hold concerning consecrated offerings whose blemish preceded their consecration?!

Is it likewise that if they die, they are redeemed [

even they agree that if they die, they are redeemed], and therefore we do not establish our Mishna according to their view?!

If so: