Bekhorot 15a (טו.) — the Talmud in English

Pochemu Rav Yehuda skazal ot imeni Rav, chto eto slova Rabbi Shimon? Ved'

emu sleduvalo skazat': «Eto slova Rabbi Shimona i ego opponenta» —

ved' tak kak dazhe Mudrecy, kotorye sporili s Rabbi Shimonom v Mishne v traktate Temura, soglasny s nim o posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh, ch'ya poroka predshestvovala ikh posvyashcheniyu: oni ne nuzhdayutsya v postanovke i otsenke?!

Skazali

ucheniki yeshivy v otvet: vsegda mozhno skazat', chto to, chto my uchili v pervoi chasti o posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh, ch'ya poroka predshestvovala ikh posvyashcheniyu, kotorye ne nuzhdayutsya v postanovke i otsenke, — eto takzhe slova Mudretsov, kotorye sporili s Rabbi Shimonom v Temure. A to, chto Rav otnes eto zakonopolozhenie tol'ko k Rabbi Shimonu, bylo vyzvano drugoi neobkhodimost'yu tolkovat' nashu Mishnu tol'ko v sootvetstvii s ego mneniem. Ved'

Rav pridержivalsya mneniya Rabbi Shimon ben Lakisha,

kak on schital,

kotoryi skazal

v traktate Temura:

po mneniyu Mudretsov —

sopernikov Rabbi Shimona —

posvyashchennye dlya remonta Khrama vkhodili v chislo zhivotnykh, trebuyushchikh postanovki i otsenki,

a

zhivotnye, prednaznachennye dlya zhertvennika,

kotorye poluchili porok posle posvyashcheniya,

ne vkhodili v chislo zhivotnykh, trebuyushchikh postanovki i otsenki. I

esli tak,

Mishnu nel'zya istolkovat' v sootvetstvii s Mudretsami, tak kak

v

poslednei chasti

nashai Mishny o posvyashchennykh dlya zhertvennika zhivotnykh, ch'ya posvyashchenie predshestvovalo ikh poroku, skazano:

«A esli oni umerli, ikh khoronyat»,

tak kak oni trebuyut postanovki i otsenki. I nel'zya istolkovat' poslednyuyu chast' v sootvetstvii s Mudretsami, opponiruyushchimi Rabbi Shimonu, a tol'ko v sootvetstvii s Rabbi Shimonom; sledovatel'no, nasha Mishny — eto mnenie Rabbi Shimona.

V Gemare vozrazhayut protiv dokazatel'stva iz poslednei chasti, iz kotoroi vidno, chto nel'zya vykupat' zhivotnykh, poluchivshikh porok posle ikh posvyashcheniya, i chto nasha Mishny ne sootvetstvuet Mudretsam, opponiruyushchim Rabbi Shimonu:

ved'

«ikh khoronyat»

skazano v poslednei chasti

imenno potomu, chto oni trebuyut postanovki i otsenki,

prezhde chem ty dokazhesh', chto Mishny ne sootvetstvuet Mudretsam, kotorye schitayut, chto zhivotnye, prednaznachennye dlya zhertvennika, ne trebuyut postanovki i otsenki?!

Mozhet byt',

vsegda oni ne trebuyut postanovki i otsenki, a to, chto ikh ne vykupayut posle smerti, proiskhodit

iz-za togo, chto posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh ne vykupayut

dlya

ikh skarmlivaniya sobakam, tak kak posle smerti zhivotnoe uzhe prigodno tol'ko dlya sobach'ei pishchi.

Once the animal has died, it is fit only to be eaten by dogs.

Skazali

ucheniki yeshivy, dokazyvaya, chto prichina poslednei chasti zaklyuchaetsya v trebovanii postanovki i otsenki:

V takom sluchae —

esli, kak ty govorish', prichina poslednei chasti v tom, chto posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh ne vykupayut dlya skarmlivaniya sobakam, —

pust' Mishna uchit

v nashai Mishne:

«Esli oni stali trefa —

neprigodnymi v pishchu dlya cheloveka, a tol'ko dlya sobak, no pri etom ostalis' zhivy —

ikh khoronyat». I tak kak nasha Mishny upomyanula «a esli oni umerli», iz etogo sleduet, chto nedostatok svyazan s trebovaniem postanovki i otsenki.

Since the Mishna specifically says “and if they died,” it follows that the deficiency is the lack of standing and valuation.

A esli zhelaesh', skazhi

inache o slovakh Rav, skazavshego «eto slova Rabbi Shimona», a ne tak, kak my ob'yasnili, chto emu prishlos' istolkovat' nashu Mishnu v sootvetstvii s Rabbi Shimonom, tak kak on pridержivaetsya mneniya Resh Lakisha, i togda poslednyaya chast' dokazyvaet, chto Mishna ne sootvetstvuet Mudretsam, opponiruyushchim Rabbi Shimonu. No:

Vsegda Rav mog pridержivat'sya mneniya Rabbi Yochanana.

To est' Rav mog pridержivat'sya i mneniya Rabbi Yochanana, a esli tebe trudno ponyat' slova Rav, kotoryi istolkoval nashu Mishnu kak mnenie Rabbi Shimona, ved' Mudretsy v Temure s nim ne sporili, — eto ne trudnost':

i uchit'

v slovakh Rav sleduet:

«Eto slova Rabbi Shimona i ego opponenta».

This appears to be the correct explanation, because there is no necessity to explain that Rav specifically holds in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan; after all, they did not disagree at all concerning an animal that was originally blemished.

My uchili v Mishne:

«No esli predshestvovalo»

«i vsyakoe, u kotorogo predshestvovalo»

ego posvyashchenie

ego poroku... i oni byli vykupленy, oni svobodny ot [zakonov] pervorodstva i podarkov:

Gemara sprashivaet:

Otкуда eto sledует?

I ob'yasnyaet:

ved' uchili Mudretsy:

V pisanii o vykuplennykh zhivotnykh, iznachal'no posvyashchennykh, skazano: «No kak yedyat gazel' i olenya, tak yesh' ego». Poetomu Pismo skazalo

«gazel'»,

chtoby nauchit':

kak gazel' svobodna ot [zakona] pervorodstva,

kotoryi otnositsya tol'ko k skotu,

tak i iznachal'no posvyashchennye zhivotnye, poluchivshie porok,

buduchi vykupлены,

svobodny ot [zakona] pervorodstva.

For it is written: “Every firstborn that is born of your cattle and of your flock, the male you shall consecrate.”

Ya vyklyuchu zakon pervorodstva, no ne vyklyuchu podarki —

Pismo govorit:

«olen'»,

kak olen' svoboden ot [zakona] pervorodstva i ot podarkov,

tak kak oni tozhe otnosyatsya tol'ko k skotu,

tak i iznachal'no posvyashchennye zhivotnye, poluchivshie porok,

buduchi vykupлены,

svobodny ot [zakonov] pervorodstva i podarkov.

For it is stated in the passage concerning the gifts [Deuteronomy 18:3]: “And this shall be the due of the priests from the people, from those who slaughter the sacrifice, whether ox or sheep [excluding wild animals, as Rashi explains], and he shall give the priest the foreleg, the cheeks, and the stomach.”

Mozhet byt', ty skazhesh':

«A esli u gazeli i olenya ikh zhiry razresheny

tak kak Tora zapretila tol'ko zhiry skota,

to i u iznachal'no posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh, poluchivshikh porok, ikh zhiry razresheny» —

As it is stated [Leviticus 7:23]: “You shall not eat any fat of an ox, sheep, or goat.”

Pismo govorit

«no»,

razdelyvaya,

chtoby ne upodobit' iznachal'no posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh, poluchivshikh porok, gazeli i olenyu vo vsekh otnosheniyakh.

Skazal uchitel': «Ya vyklyuchu pervorodnogo»

kotoryi ne otnositsya k vykupленным iznachal'no posvyashchennym zhivotnym, poluchivshim porok, tak kak Tora upodobila ikh gazeli,

«no ne vyklyuchu podarki»:

Gemara sprashivaet:

«Chem otlichaetsya»

pervorodstvo, iz chisla kotorogo iznachal'no posvyashchennye zhivotnye, poluchivshie porok, isklyucheny iz-za stikha «kak gazel'», ot podarkov, kotorye tozhe ne byli isklyucheny etim stikhom, a byli isklyucheny stikhom «kak olen'»?

Gemara ob'yasnyaet:

«Ya vyklyuchu pervorodnogo, kotoryi ne yavlyaetsya ravnym dlya vsekh»,

tak kak on otnositsya tol'ko k pervorodnomu samtsu, no ne k samke,

«no ne vyklyuchu podarki, kotorye ravny dlya vsekh»

— i dlya samtsov, i dlya samok skota.

Poetomu

Pismo govorit

«olen'»,

chtoby isklyuchit' takzhe podarki.

Skazal

s udivleniem

Rav Pappa Abaye:

Tak kak Pismo upodobilo vykuplennykh iznachal'no posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh, poluchivshikh porok, gazeli i olenyu i my vyveli, chto oni svobodny ot pervorodstva i podarkov, to skazhem takzhe:

«A esli gazel' i olen' ne imeyut»

«ego i ego deti» [«Byka ili ovets ego i ego deti ne zakolesh' v odin den'», Vayikra 22:28]

—

zapoved' otnositsya k nim,

tak kak ona otnositsya tol'ko k skotu,

to i k iznachal'no posvyashchennym zhivotnym, poluchivshim porok,

buduchi vykupленy,

zapoved' «ego i ego deti» k nim ne otnositsya?!

Skazal

v otvet

emu

Abaye Rav Pappe:

Nevozmozhno skazat', chto zakol «ego i ego deti» razreshen v otnoshenii vykuplennykh iznachal'no posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh, poluchivshikh porok, ved'

s chem ty sravnivaesh' ikh

vykuplennykh iznachal'no posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh, poluchivshikh porok [s chem ty ikh sravnivaesh' i upodoblyaesh']?!

Esli s obychnymi zhivotnymi,

to

zapoved' «ego i ego deti» otnositsya k nim, a esli ty sravnivaesh' ikh s posvyashchennymi zhivotnymi,

to i v etom sluchae

zapoved' «ego i ego deti» otnositsya k nim.

Mozhesh' li ty skazat' eto o pervorodstve i podarkakh, kotorye ne otnosyatsya k posvyashchennym zhivotnym — Rav Pappa vozrazil Abaye, opirayas' na to, chto my uchili v barayte: «A esli gazel' i olen' ne imeyut zhira razreshennym, to i iznachal'no posvyashchennym zhivotnym, poluchivshim porok, zhir razreshen; Pismo govorit: “no”, razdelyvaya»:

Esli tak —

esli, kak ty govorish', vsyakaya veshch', otnosyashchayasya i k posvyashchennym, i k obychnym zhivotnym, ne mozhet byt' isklyuchena na osnovanii upodobleniya gazeli i olenyu, —

to i v otnoshenii zhira skazhem tak: «S chem ty sravnivaesh' ikh? Esli s obychnymi zhivotnymi — ikh zhiry zapreshcheny; a esli s posvyashchennymi — ikh zhiry zapreshcheny» —

To est', esli sledovat' tvoemu rassuzhdeniyu, nam takzhe nikogda ne prishlo by v golovu razreshit' zhir vykuplennykh iznachal'no posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh, poluchivshikh porok, ved' zapreshchen i zhir posvyashchennykh, i zhir obychnykh zhivotnykh; dazhe esli by Tora ne isklyuchila ikh slovom «no», my by zapretili ego. Tem ne menee iz barayty vidno obratno: bez slova «no» ya by razreshil zhir vykuplennykh iznachal'no posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh, poluchivshikh porok. Znachit, i «ego i ego deti» sleduet razreshit' v otnoshenii vykuplennykh iznachal'no posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh, poluchivshikh porok, nesmotrya na to chto i u posvyashchennykh, i u obychnykh zhivotnykh «ego i ego deti» zapreshcheno?!

Abaye skazal Rav Pappe:

Ved' ty skazal:

«no»

a ne ikh zhir.

Skazhi takzhe:

«no»

a ne «ego i ego deti»?!

Rabbeinu Gershom explained: Abaye said to him: My statement, “To what are you comparing them?” is not valid. Rather, one can say as follows: Just as you said, “however, and not their fat,” so too, say, “however, and not its mother and its young.” And see the marginal note. And Rashi gave a reason for explaining that “like a deer and a gazelle” exempts the animal from the firstborn animal and the gifts, whereas “however” prohibits its fat and the prohibition of its mother and its young: It is more reasonable that the comparison was stated to exempt it from the firstborn animal and the gifts, while “however” was stated to prohibit its fat and its mother and its young. In this way we compare them to animals that are fully consecrated; if we say the opposite, we would compare them neither to consecrated nor to non-sacred animals.

Rava skazal,

oby ob"yasnit', pochemu zapret «ego i ego deti» otnositsya k vykupленным iznachal'no posvyashchennym zhivotnym, poluchivshim porok, nesmotrya na to chto Tora upodobila ikh gazeli i olenyu:

«No»

— slovo, prizyvayushchee razdelit' —

prišlo imenno dlya «ego i ego deti»,

chtoby nauchit', chto etot zapret otnositsya i k nim,

a

esli

ikh zhir,

kotoryi zapreshchen,

vyvoditsya iz ikh krovi

—

vyvoditsya.

V pisanii o porochnom pervorodnom [Devarim 15] skazano: «A esli budet v nem [v pervorodnom] porok, v tvoikh vratakh yesh' ego; nechistyi i chistyi vmeste, kak gazel' i olen'.

Tol'ko krovi ego ne yesh'

— na zemle prolei ego, kak vodu», i vot

chto oznachaet «ego krov'»,

kakova tsel' Tory zapretit' ego krov', ved'

esli skazat', chto eto v bukval'nom smysle ego krov',

tak ob"yasnit' nel'zya, ved' —

Daже esli eto byla by tol'ko krov' gazeli i olenya, razve krov' gazeli i olenya razreshena [

razve ikh krov' razreshena]? To est', Tora dolzhna byla nauchit' nas zapretu porochnogo zhivotnogo tol'ko v tom, chto my mogli by schest' razreshennym. No s chego by my razreshili krov'? I esli eto svyazano s tem, chto Tora upodobila iznachal'no posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh, poluchivshikh porok, gazeli i olenyu, razve ikh krov' razreshena? Ved' zapret krovi otnositsya i k dikomu zhivotnomu, i k skotu.

No,

neizbezhno

«ego krov'» — eto

ego zhir,

kotoryi Pismo dolzhno bylo zapretit' v otnoshenii iznachal'no posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh, poluchivshikh porok, tak kak iz-za upodobleniya gazeli i olenyu, u kotorykh zhir razreshen, ya by schital ego razreshennym.

Vozrazhayut:

Pochemu Miloserdnyi ne napisal:

«tol'ko»

ego zhir

«ne yesh'te»? Zachem Pismo izmenilo formulirovku zapreta zhira i vyrazilo ego slovom «ego krov'»?!

Otvechayut:

Esli by Miloserdnyi napisal «ego zhir»

pryamo,

ya by skazal,

chto Tora priшла ne dlya togo, chtoby priravnyat' zhir iznachal'no posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh, poluchivshikh porok, k obychnomu zhiri skota, no ya by skazal, chto

upodoblenie

gazeli i olenyu priносit nekotoroe oblegchenie v zaprete zhira,

a stikh

uchit, chto ego nel'zya polnost'yu razreshit', kak u gazeli i olenya. Kak imenno:

Upodoblenie pozvolilo isklyuchit'

zhir iznachal'no posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh, poluchivshikh porok,

iz nakazaniya karet,

kotorym obychno nakazyvaetsya tot, kto yest zhir skota; ya by tak tolkoval, potomu chto

kogda napisano

v stikhе

«karet nakladyvaetsya na togo, kto yest zhir skota», imenno tak skazano:

«Ved' vsyakii, kto yest zhir skota», i upodoblenie Tora gazeli i olenyu, kotorye yavlyayutsya dikimi zhivotnymi, priшlo chtoby isklyuchit' nakazanie karet.

and the Torah’s comparison to a deer and a gazelle, which are wild animals, comes to exclude it from liability for excision.

A stikh «tol'ko ego zhir»

pozvolil ustanovit' v otnoshenii nego tol'ko zapret [

v odnom lish' zaprete, bez kareta] —

[a prohibition without liability for excision]—

Poetomu Miloserdnyi vyrazil

ego zhir

slovom «ego krov'»,

chtoby skazat':

kak za ego krov' polagaetsya karet, tak i za ego zhir polagaetsya karet.

I vse eshche vozrazhayut Ravе, kotoryi istolkoval isklyuchenie «no» kak zapret zakola «ego i ego deti» v otnoshenii iznachal'no posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh, poluchivshikh porok:

Ved' tannai

barayty

«no»

skazal dlya togo, chtoby isklyuchit' ego zhir, a ne «no, a ne “ego i ego deti”»?!

and not “however, and not its mother and its young”!?

Otvechayut:

Vot chto skazal

tannai barayty: dazhe

esli by ne bylo skazano

«ego krov'»,

ya by skazal:

«no»

a ne ego zhir.

No

teper', kogda skazano

«ego krov'»

i my nauchilis', chto zhir iznachal'no posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh, poluchivshikh porok, zapreshchen, «no»

prišlo imenno dlya «ego i ego deti»,

chtoby ego zapretit'.

My uchili v Mishne: «I vsyakoe, u kotorogo ego posvyashchenie predshestvovalo ego poroku»...

«i ne vykhodyat v obychnye zhivotnye»

dlya strizhki i raboty, a ikh potomstvo i ikh zhir zapreshcheny posle ikh vykupa:

Gemara sprashivaet:

Otкуда eto sleduet,

chto ikh strizhka, rabota i zhir zapreshcheny?

Ved' uchili Mudretsy:

V razdele o vykuplennykh iznachal'no posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh, poluchivshikh porok, skazano: «Tol'ko po vsyakomu zhelaniyu tvoei dushi zakolesh' i budesh' yest' myaso», i my vyvodim:

«Zakolesh'»:

a ne strizhka.

To est', ne strigi

iznachal'no posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh, poluchivshikh porok .

«Myaso»:

a ne zhir.

«I budesh' yest'»:

a ne tvoim sobakam; otsyuda, chto posvyashchennykh zhivotnykh ne vykupayut, chtoby skormit' ikh sobakam,

naprimer, esli zhivotnoe stalo trefa ili umerlo.