Bekhorot 15a — the Talmud in English

Why did Rav Yehuda say in the name of Rav that this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon? Surely

he needed to say: “This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon and his dispute”

to teach that, since even the Sages who disputed Rabbi Shimon in the Mishna in Temura agree with him concerning consecrated animals whose blemish preceded their consecration—that they do not require standing and valuation!?

They said

the members of the academy in answer: In truth, what we learned in the first clause, concerning consecrated animals whose blemish preceded their consecration, that they do not require standing and valuation, is also the statement of the Sages—who dispute Rabbi Shimon in Temura. And as for Rav attributing this law only to Rabbi Shimon, he had another necessity to explain our Mishna only according to his view. For

Rav holds like Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish

and

he said

in tractate Temura:

According to the Rabbis

—the companions of Rabbi Shimon in dispute—

consecrated objects for the repair of the Temple were included in standing and valuation, whereas

the

consecrated objects of the altar

that became blemished after they had been consecrated

were not included in standing and valuation. And

if so,

our Mishna cannot be established as the view of the Rabbis, for

it

teaches in the latter clause

of our Mishna, concerning consecrated objects of the altar whose consecration preceded their blemish:

“And if they died, they shall be buried,”

because they require standing and valuation. And it is impossible to establish the latter clause according to the Sages who dispute Rabbi Shimon, but only according to Rabbi Shimon; and necessarily, our Mishna is Rabbi Shimon’s.

And we challenge the proof from the latter clause, in which it is explained that one does not redeem consecrated animals that became blemished after their consecration—that our Mishna is not according to the Sages, the disputants of Rabbi Shimon:

From where

is it

that “if they died, they shall be buried,”

which we learned in the latter clause,

is because they require standing and valuation—so that you prove from it that it is not according to the Sages, who hold that consecrated objects of the altar do not require standing and valuation!?

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

Perhaps

in truth they do not require standing and valuation, and the reason that one does not redeem them when they die is

because one does not redeem consecrated animals

in order

to feed them to dogs,

since, once it has died, it is already fit only for eating by dogs.

They said

the members of the academy, to prove that the reason for the latter clause is standing and valuation:

If so,—

according to your words, that the reason for the latter clause is that one does not redeem consecrated animals in order to feed them to dogs—

let it teach

in our Mishna:

“If they became tereifa

—that they are not fit for human consumption but only for dogs, and nevertheless they are alive—

they shall be buried.”

And since our Mishna stated “and if they died,” it follows that the deficiency is because of standing and valuation.

And if you wish, say

to explain Rav’s statement, who said, “This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon,” in another manner, and not as we explained: that he had to establish our Mishna as Rabbi Shimon because he holds like Resh Lakish, and if so, the latter clause proves that it is not according to the Sages who dispute Rabbi Shimon. Rather:

In truth, Rav holds like Rabbi Yohanan.

That is, Rav may hold even like Rabbi Yohanan, and as for what is difficult for you, Rav’s wording, that he explained our Mishna as Rabbi Shimon, although the Sages of Temura did not dispute him—it is not difficult:

And teach

in Rav’s statement:

“This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon and his dispute.”

We learned in the Mishna:

But where the consecration

and everything whose consecration

preceded

its blemish … and they were redeemed, they are exempt from the firstborn offering and from the gifts:

The Gemara asks:

From where are these matters?

And it explains:

For the Sages taught:

It is written concerning consecrated animals disqualified and redeemed: “But just as one eats the gazelle and the deer, so shall you eat it”; and therefore Scripture said

“gazelle,”

in order to teach:

Just as a gazelle is exempt from the firstborn offering,

which applies only to livestock,

so too consecrated animals disqualified

that were redeemed

are exempt from the firstborn offering.

I will exclude the firstborn offering, but I will not exclude the gifts—

Scripture says:

“deer.”

Just as a deer is exempt from the firstborn offering and from the gifts,

which likewise apply only to livestock,

so too consecrated animals disqualified

that were redeemed

are exempt from the firstborn offering and from the gifts.

Lest you say:

Just as the fat of a gazelle and a deer is permitted,

for the Torah prohibited only the fat of livestock,

so too the fat of consecrated animals disqualified is permitted—

Scripture says

“but,”

it divided,

so that consecrated animals disqualified are not made entirely comparable to a gazelle and a deer.

The Master said: “I will exclude the firstborn offering”

so that it will not apply to consecrated animals disqualified that were redeemed, since the Torah compared them to a gazelle,

“but I will not exclude the gifts”:

The Gemara asks:

What is different

about the firstborn offering, from which consecrated animals disqualified were excluded because “like the gazelle” was stated, whereas the gifts were not also excluded by that verse, but rather by “like the deer”?

And the Gemara explains:

I will exclude the firstborn offering, which is not common to all,

for it applies only to a male firstborn and not to a female,

but I will not exclude the gifts, which are common to all,

both among male animals and among females.

And therefore

Scripture says

“deer,”

to exclude the gifts as well.

Said

in astonishment

Rav Pappa to Abaye:

Since Scripture compared consecrated animals disqualified that were redeemed to a gazelle and a deer, and we learned to exempt them from the firstborn offering and from the gifts, we should likewise say:

Just as a gazelle and a deer do not have

“it and its offspring”

—“You shall not slaughter an ox or a sheep, it and its offspring, on one day,” Leviticus 22:28—

apply to them,

for it applies only to livestock,

so too consecrated animals disqualified

that were redeemed

the law of it and its offspring does not apply to them!?

Said

in answer

to him

Abaye to Rav Pappa:

It is impossible that the slaughtering of it and its offspring should be permitted with regard to consecrated animals disqualified that were redeemed, for

to what do you compare them

to consecrated animals disqualified that were redeemed [what will you compare them to and make them equal]!?

If to unconsecrated animals,

then

the law of it and its offspring applies to it; and if you compare them to consecrated animals,

then likewise

the law of it and its offspring applies to it.

Can you say this concerning the firstborn offering and the gifts, which do not apply to consecrated animals?— Rav Pappa challenged Abaye with what we learned in a beraita: Just as the fat of a gazelle and a deer is permitted, so too the fat of consecrated animals disqualified is permitted; Scripture says, “but,” it divided:

If so—

according to your words, that anything applying both to consecrated and to unconsecrated animals cannot be excluded through comparison to a gazelle and a deer—

with regard to its fat also let us say so: “To what do you compare them? If to unconsecrated animals, their fat is forbidden; and if to consecrated animals, their fat is forbidden”—

That is, if this is as you say, then we likewise would never have considered permitting the fat of consecrated animals disqualified, for both the fat of consecrated animals and the fat of unconsecrated animals is forbidden; and even if the Torah had not excluded it by “but,” we would have forbidden it. Nevertheless, it is explicit in the beraita not so, but rather that I would have permitted the fat of consecrated animals disqualified if not for “but.” If so, we too should permit it and its offspring with consecrated animals disqualified, even though it and its offspring are forbidden both with consecrated and with unconsecrated animals!?

Abaye said to Rav Pappa:

Rather, did you not say

“but”

and not its fat?

Say also

“but”

and not it and its offspring!?

Rava said

to explain the reason that the prohibition of it and its offspring applies to consecrated animals disqualified that were redeemed, even though the Torah compared them to a gazelle and a deer:

“But”

—which comes to divide—

comes only for it and its offspring

to teach that this prohibition applies to them,

and

if

its fat,

which is forbidden,

would be derived from its blood,

then it

would emerge—

For it is written concerning a firstborn animal with a blemish [Deuteronomy 15]: “And if there will be a blemish in it [in the firstborn], within your gates, you shall eat it, the impure and the pure together, like the gazelle and like the deer.

Only its blood you shall not eat,

you shall pour it upon the ground like water”; and what is

“its blood”?

What does the Torah intend by forbidding its blood? For if

perhaps its actual blood,

it is impossible to explain this, for:

It is no more than the blood of a gazelle and a deer; is the blood of a gazelle and a deer permitted?

[Are the blood of the gazelle and the deer permitted?] That is, the Torah needed to teach a prohibition concerning a blemished animal only regarding what we would have thought to permit. But blood—what reason would there be to permit it? And if it is because the Torah compared consecrated animals disqualified to a gazelle and a deer, is their blood permitted? Surely the prohibition of blood applies both to a wild animal and to livestock.

Rather,

necessarily, what is

“its blood”?

Its fat,

for Scripture needed to forbid it in consecrated animals disqualified because I would have permitted it on account of the comparison to a gazelle and a deer, in which fat is permitted.

And we challenge:

Let the Merciful One write

“only”

“its fat

you shall not eat”; why did Scripture alter the prohibition of fat by expressing it with the word “its blood”?

And we answer:

If the Merciful One had written “its fat”

explicitly,

I would have thought

that the Torah did not come to make the fat of consecrated animals disqualified like the ordinary fat of livestock, but I would have said that

the juxtaposition

to the gazelle and the deer is effective to ease somewhat the prohibition of fat,

and the verse is effective

not to permit it completely like a gazelle and a deer. How so?

The juxtaposition is effective to exclude

the fat of consecrated animals disqualified

from excision,

which one incurs for eating ordinary animal fat; and I would explain it this way because

when the verse wrote

the verse

“excision,” it is written concerning one who eats the fat of livestock, as it is stated:

“For anyone who eats fat from the livestock,”

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

And the verse is effective,

“Only its fat,”

to establish against it merely a prohibition

[a prohibition only, without excision]—

For this reason the Merciful One brought it out

with regard to its fat

in the expression “its blood,”

to say:

Just as its blood is subject to excision, so too its fat is subject to excision.

And we still challenge Rava, who explained the exclusion “but” as forbidding the slaughtering of it and its offspring with consecrated animals disqualified:

But the tanna

of the beraita

“but”

said “and not its fat,”

and not “but, and not it and its offspring”!?

And we answer:

This is what the tanna means:

of the beraita is saying: Even

if it had not been stated

“its blood,”

I would have said:

“but”

and not its fat.

Nevertheless,

now that it is stated

“its blood,”

and we learned to forbid the fat of consecrated animals disqualified, “but”

comes only for it and its offspring,

to forbid it.

We learned in the Mishna: And everything whose consecration preceded its blemish …

and they do not emerge into unconsecrated status

for shearing and labor, and their offspring and their fat are forbidden after their redemption:

The Gemara asks:

From where are these matters,

that the shearing, the labor, and the fat are forbidden?

For the Sages taught:

It is written in the section concerning consecrated animals disqualified that were redeemed: “Only according to all the desire of your soul may you slaughter and eat meat,” and we expound:

“You shall slaughter”:

but not shearing.

That is, do not shear

the consecrated animals disqualified.

“Meat”:

but not fat.

“And you shall eat”:

but not for your dogs; from here that one does not redeem consecrated animals in order to feed them to dogs,

such as when it became tereifa or died.