Bekhorot 15b — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Gershom above, 6b— concerning the Gemara that the Tosafot brought—wrote: “And you shall eat meat but not fat,” for “you shall not labor” is written; milking consecrated animals is labor. It is necessarily necessary to say in explanation of his words that the foundation of the prohibition is the act of milking, and the Torah forbade even the milk that was milked [and not according to the view of the interpreters who hold that the milk is permitted. And see Tosafot below, 25a, s.v. “wool,” who mentioned a similar reasoning concerning shearing: If it fell out, it is permitted, but if he intended to shear, the shearing is forbidden]. As for what the Tosafot maintained, that concerning shearing there is a prohibition only in the act of shearing, while the shearing itself is permitted, see what is explained in the Gemara below, folio 25, and in the notes there. In the Minh at Hinukh [commandment 441:2] expanded somewhat on this law and brought the dispute of the early authorities: The view of Tosafot in Pesahim 29b, s.v. “Rav Ashi,” is that concerning consecrated objects of the altar it is not specifically in order to feed them to dogs that one may not redeem them; rather, all benefit is likewise forbidden, even using it as fuel beneath one’s stew, for the written decree is “and you shall eat.” But Tosafot in Bava Kamma 53b, s.v. “concerning vessels,” hold that we exclude from “and you shall eat” only the eating of dogs and gentiles: Since it is eating, the Torah forbade it, for the Torah permitted specifically the eating of an Israelite and not the eating of dogs and gentiles; but other benefits, such as using it as fuel beneath one’s stew and the like, are permitted, for this was not excluded from “and you shall eat.” And the view of the Rambam, in chapter 2, halakha 10, concerning a tereifa, “they shall graze until they die and shall be buried,” indicates that it requires burial and that no benefit from it is permitted, whether a tereifa or a dead animal. All this applies specifically when it became tereifa or died, since it is fit for an Israelite only for gentiles and dogs; but with a fit animal that was redeemed and slaughtered, it is permitted to feed it to gentiles and dogs, for we expound “and you shall eat,” but not for your dogs—that is, something fit only for a dog; but where it is fit for him himself, it is permitted to feed it to them. So Tosafot in Zevahim 71b, s.v. “and with a tereifa,” wrote, and in Bekhorot 33b, s.v. “the ruling.” Some say: “

You shall slaughter and eat”:

You have no permission to eat them

except from the time of slaughter and thereafter,

to teach: that the shearing, the labor, and the milk—which are benefits derived while alive—are forbidden.

But one may redeem consecrated animals in order to feed them to dogs,

because the word “and you shall eat” is not superfluous to teach that they may not be redeemed in order to feed them to dogs. B.

The Minhat Hinukh [mitzva 441, subsection 3] wrote: It is obvious that milk from a slaughtered animal is permitted, for after slaughter all things become permitted; see in Bekhorot: “You shall slaughter, etc.; you have no permission concerning it except for eating, from the time of slaughter and thereafter.” But after slaughter it is certainly permitted; if so, the milk is also permitted. And likewise in Bekhorot 6b we say: Since the Torah forbade the milk of disqualified consecrated animals, learn from this that milk is permitted. But perhaps the Torah forbade the milk of a slaughtered disqualified consecrated animal, whereas milk is forbidden because of a limb from a living creature; learn from this that the milk of disqualified consecrated animals is likewise permitted after slaughter. [And from this proof one can learn that the same law applies according to the first formulation, for the Gemara’s proof there, in its straightforward sense, is from the first formulation.] I later saw in Tosafot Bekhorot 25a, s.v. “the hair of a firstborn animal,” that this is explicitly explained as I wrote. [And they brought all his proofs. See there that they raised a difficulty from the passage in Hullin 36a—which was brought in the note above—that we would have forbidden slaughter blood like milk; see there. It should be noted that according to what was explained in the approach of Rabbenu Gershom, that the reason for the prohibition of milk is the milking, if so, in milk found in its womb after slaughter there is no prohibition] We learned in the Mishna: “And any animals whose consecration preceded their blemish”...

their offspring are forbidden after their redemption:

The Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances [

with regard to which offspring did we learn that they are forbidden]?

If you say that it became pregnant and gave birth after its redemption [

offspring with which their mother became pregnant and to which she gave birth after her redemption], this cannot be said, because:

Why

would these offspring be forbidden, when

they are the offspring of a deer and a ram?

That is, they are non-consecrated animals, since their mother had already been redeemed.

Rather,

the Gemara explains our Mishna as dealing with a case in which

it became pregnant before its redemption and gave birth after its redemption,

and they are forbidden by rabbinic decree, as will be explained later in the passage. But by Torah law they are not forbidden, because they were already redeemed through the redemption of their mother, for the fetus is considered a limb of its mother.

The Gemara infers:

But

if they were born

before their redemption, they too are consecrated

they are consecrated [

they are consecrated].

From where are these words?

For the Sages taught:

It is written in the section of peace-offerings [Leviticus 3:1]: “And if his offering is a sacrifice of peace-offerings, if from cattle he offers it, whether male or female, unblemished shall he offer it before the Lord.” The verse did not need to specify that peace-offerings come from both the male and the female, for even if the verse had remained unspecified, the law would have been so, since the verse did not say that it must be a male, as it said in the section of a burnt-offering. And we expound: “

Male”

to include the offspring. “

And” “

female”

to include a substitution.

And I have only [learned this regarding] offspring

of

unblemished animals, and the substitution of unblemished animals;

but

the offspring of blemished animals

whose consecration preceded their blemish,

and the substitution of blemished animals—from where?

When it says: “

whether male,”

the word “whether”

comes to include the offspring

of

blemished animals,

and it says: “

whether female”

to include the substitution of blemished animals.

Here the Gemara returns to the law of offspring with which their mother became pregnant after she became blemished and before her redemption, and to which she gave birth after her redemption; these are the offspring with which our Mishna deals. And it asks:

Those offspring that

were born

after their redemption

and whose conception was before their redemption,

what shall become of them,

for they are fit neither to be offered nor to be redeemed, as Rav Huna will explain and proceed?

The Gemara prefaces: Regarding those offspring that were also born

before their redemption,

which we expound to include from “whether male,”

there is a dispute concerning them [

the amoraim disputed their law in tractate Temura 17b]:

There is one who says: They are consecrated to be offered.

And there is one who says: They are consecrated for grazing

until a blemish occurs in them and they are redeemed. That is, their sanctity is not with regard to offering, but they cannot be redeemed without a blemish.

The question concerns those

that

were born

after their redemption

and whose conception was before their redemption:

what shall become of them?

Rav Huna said:

He gathers them into an enclosure [

a room],

and they die

of themselves from hunger. And this is because:

For what can he do [

what is it possible to do with them]?

You might say

let us offer them [

offer them upon the altar], but this is impossible, for

they come by virtue of a rejected sanctity [

they come by virtue of a rejected sanctity that is unfit for offering].

B. Reshit Bikurim [41b of the book’s pages, s.v. “further”] was astonished: Why do I need the two disadvantages, that their mothers are blemished animals? Let it follow simply from the fact that they were born after their redemption. [That is, what Rashi wrote—that they were born after their redemption—is because the mother’s redemption benefited the fetus, as Rashi wrote above, that the fetus is considered a limb of its mother; if so, this reason alone should suffice for us not to offer it, since it was redeemed!] And see there, where he explained that if it were not that it comes by virtue of the rejected sanctity of a blemished animal, the mother’s redemption would not benefit the fetus, since the offspring itself is unblemished; only because it comes by virtue of a blemished animal does the legal status of a blemished animal also apply to it. See there at greater length. See in the note above, page 14, beginning of side b, for a rationale of this kind that also seems to emerge from Rashi there, s.v. “and the Gemara infers.” And we learn from his words that the offspring’s redemption does not follow its mother’s, but that its mother’s blemish enables the offspring to be redeemed, unlike what was explained above. Yet this requires explanation: Rashi’s source is sanctity of monetary value, so how can this law be learned from sanctity of monetary value!? And see there, s.v. “Rashi,” what he wrote about the end of Rashi’s words. You might say

let us redeem them [

redeem them], and that prohibition which the Sages imposed upon them will be removed; this too is impossible, because

they are not powerful enough for their redemption to take hold;

that rabbinic sanctity does not have the power to cause redemption to take hold in it so that it becomes non-consecrated.

But

they say in the West in the name of Rabbi Hanina,

that this is what one should do:

Close to their redemption, he consecrates them for the sake of that sacrifice

to which their mother is consecrated, and waits until they become blemished and redeems them.

And we object to this:

Close to their redemption!?

Does this mean that they are capable of redemption,

when you say to consecrate it before that redemption, whereas they have no redemption at all, because their sanctity does not have the power to cause their redemption to take hold!?

Rather, say

that Rabbi Hanina said this:

Close to the redemption of their mother, he consecrates them

the offspring

for the sake of that sacrifice,

and redeems the offspring themselves, and they become permitted.

B. In the writings attributed to the Gri"ז he was astonished: What is different, that specifically for the sanctity of offspring this principle—that the fetus is considered a limb of its mother—helps, so that it is redeemed through its mother’s blemish, but not for the consecration that he consecrated afterward? Since the fetus is considered a limb of its mother, and its mother’s blemish helps to redeem the offspring through it, this consecration too should be redeemed. The Gemara adds an explanation of our Mishna, which we interpreted as referring to offspring with which their mother became pregnant before their redemption and which were born after their mother’s redemption, and we learned that they are forbidden:

And

what is the reason

for which they are forbidden, when, since their mother was redeemed, they too were redeemed along with their mother, for the fetus is considered a limb of its mother!?

Rabbi Levi said:

The reason the Sages forbade them is that the mother remains forbidden with regard to shearing and labor even after she has been redeemed. And if we permit the offspring,

there is a decree lest he raise from them [

from their mothers, disqualified consecrated animals, after they have been redeemed]

herds upon herds

and come to shear and work their mother.

B. Rashi further added Rashi to explain: But above, concerning those whose blemish preceded their consecration, we do not decree, because it is an uncommon matter, for we say in tractate Temura that one who consecrates blemished animals for the altar violates five prohibitions. [And see what was explained in the notes on our Mishna according to this Rashi.] That is, he found it difficult concerning what we learned at the beginning—in the case of consecrated animals whose blemish preceded their consecration—“their offspring and their milk are permitted,” and we explained it above, 14a–b, as referring to offspring with which their mother became pregnant before her redemption and to which she gave birth after her redemption. Rashi found it difficult: Why do we not decree lest he raise herds upon herds from them? The Rashash was astonished: The decree is lest he keep the mother after her redemption in order to raise offspring from her and come to shear and work them; if so, in the case of consecrated animals whose blemish preceded their consecration, they are permitted for shearing and labor after their redemption, as explicitly stated in our Mishna, so what place is there for a decree!? And see in Ohel Moshe what he brought in the name of the later authorities to explain Rashi’s words. And see further in Hazon Ish, Bekhorot 18:10. C. [ Regarding the main point of what Rashi wrote, that the decree is lest one come to shearing and labor: According to what Maimonides wrote, Me'ilah 1:9, that it is forbidden to breed disqualified consecrated animals, as the משנה למלך explained there, that it is on account of the prohibition of labor, the decree can be explained simply] It was explained above in the name of Rabbi Hanina that those offspring in their mother’s womb he consecrates, before their mother’s redemption, for that sacrifice.

Ravina asked Rav Sheshet: What is the law concerning consecrating them

the offspring in the wombs of disqualified consecrated animals

for any sacrifice he wishes,

or specifically for that sacrifice for which their mother was consecrated?

He said to him,

Rav Sheshet to Ravina:

He consecrates them

only for that sacrifice.

Ravina said to Rav Sheshet:

What is the reason?

He said to him,

Rav Sheshet to Ravina: For he

derives “in your cities”

“in your cities” [“which He gave you in all your cities”—“and when there is a blemish in it, in your cities you shall eat it”]

from the firstborn: Just as with a firstborn he cannot consecrate them for any sacrifice he wishes, as it is written

[Leviticus 27]: “

But the firstborn that is born as a firstborn for the Lord

among cattle, no man shall consecrate it,”

which shows that it cannot be consecrated with another sanctity,

so too these

offspring of disqualified consecrated animals

he cannot consecrate them for any sacrifice he wishes.

A baraita was taught in accordance with Rav Sheshet’s opinion:

Sacrificial animals whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration

and which were consecrated with sanctity of value,

and were redeemed: are obligated in the laws of the firstborn and the gifts.

Whether before their redemption or after their redemption, one who shears them or works with them does not receive forty lashes,

because even before their redemption there is here only a prohibition, but not liability to lashes, and after their redemption they are entirely permitted.

Whether before their redemption

and

whether after their redemption, they cannot effect temura.

Before their redemption, misuse of consecrated property applies to them,

since they were consecrated with sanctity of value,

but after their redemption, misuse of consecrated property does not apply to them,

as redemption releases them entirely into the non-sacred sphere.

Their offspring,

born to them after their redemption, even if they had been conceived before their redemption, are

non-sacred,

as is explained in our Mishna, which states that they are permitted.

And they are redeemed,

the offspring born to them before their redemption,

even while unblemished,

and they do not require a blemish, as explained above, on 14b, at the beginning of the page, because the secondary entity should not be more stringent than the primary one.

And one may consecrate them,

the offspring,

to whichever offering he wishes.

The general rule is: They are

like non-sacred animals in every respect; the only law applicable to them is the mitzva of elevating their value,

that is, they must be redeemed for an increased monetary value.

But if their consecration preceded their blemish, or

even if

a temporary blemish preceded their consecration,

which does not prevent the bodily sanctity from taking effect,

and afterward a permanent blemish developed, and they were redeemed [

and all the more so if this occurred before they were redeemed]: they are

exempt from the laws of the firstborn and from the gifts,

as is explained in our Mishna.

Whether before their redemption or after their redemption, one who shears them or works with them receives forty lashes,

because he violated, “You shall not work with the firstborn of your ox, and you shall not shear the firstborn of your flock.”

And whether before their redemption or after their redemption, they can effect temura.

Before their redemption, misuse of consecrated property applies to them, but after their redemption, misuse of consecrated property does not apply to them.

And their offspring,

which were conceived by their mother before their redemption and born after their redemption, are

consecrated,

by rabbinic law, as explained above.

And they are not redeemed while unblemished,

referring to offspring born after redemption.

And one may not consecrate them,

the offspring in their mother’s womb,

to whichever offering he wishes,

in accordance with Rav Sheshet; and this is what we said: “A baraita was taught in accordance with Rav Sheshet’s opinion.”

The general rule is: They are—

the consecrated animals whose consecration preceded their blemish and which were redeemed—

like consecrated property in every respect, and the only permission applicable to them is the permission to eat.

The Gemara explains what is included by the phrase “The general rule is: They are like non-sacred animals in every respect,” stated in the first clause concerning sacrificial animals whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration, and by the phrase “The general rule is: They are like consecrated property in every respect,” stated in the final clause concerning sacrificial animals whose consecration preceded their blemish: “

The general rule”

in the first clause, serves to include the case of one who slaughters them—

sacrificial animals whose blemish preceded their consecration, before they were redeemed—

outside the Temple courtyard, which

he

is exempt from, [

as explained in our Mishna], since they were not consecrated with bodily sanctity.