Bekhorot 15b (טו:) — the Talmud in English

A Rabbenu Gershom vyshe, 6b — v Gemare, kotoruyu priveli Tosafoт, napisal: «I budesh' yest' myaso, a ne moloko», tak kak skazano «i ne budesh' rabotat'», a doenie posvyashchennogo yavlyaetsya rabotoi. Neobkhodimo bezuslovno ob"yasnit' ego slova tak: osnova zapreta — deistvie doeniya, i Tora zapretila takzhe vydoyennoe moloko [a ne kak schitayut nekotorye tolkovateli, kotorye razreshayut moloko. Smotri Tosafoт nizhe, 25a, v kommentarii «volos», upominayushchie skhozhee rassuzhdenie o strizhke: esli volna vypala sama, ona razreshena, no esli chelovek namerenno strig, strizhka zapreshchena]. A o tom, chto Tosafoт schitayut strizhku zapreshchennoi tol'ko kak deistvie, togda kak sama volna razreshena, smotri razbor v Gemare nizhe, na stranitse 25, i primechaniya tam. Some say: “

You shall slaughter and eat”:

You have no permission to eat them

except from the time of slaughter onward,

teaching that the shearing, the labor, and the milk—which are benefits derived from the animal while it is alive—are forbidden.

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

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

We learned in the Mishna: “And any animal whose consecration preceded its blemish” ...

its offspring are forbidden after their redemption:

The Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances

of the offspring concerning which we learned that they are forbidden?

If you say that the mother 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

should these offspring be forbidden? They are

the offspring of a deer and a ram.

That is, they are nonconsecrated animals, since their mother had already been redeemed.

Rather,

the Gemara explains that our Mishna is dealing with a case where

the mother became pregnant before her redemption and gave birth after her redemption,

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

The Gemara infers:

This

means that if they were born

before their redemption, they too are consecrated

they are consecrated

[they are consecrated].

From where are these matters derived?

The Sages taught:

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

Male”

includes the offspring. “And

female”

includes the exchange-offering.

And I have derived only the offspring

of

the

unblemished animals and the exchange-offering of unblemished animals,

but

the offspring of blemished animals

whose consecration preceded their blemish,

and the exchange-offering of blemished animals—from where?

When it says: “

whether male,”

the word “whether”

includes the offspring

of

blemished animals, and it says, “

and it says: “

whether female,”

to include the exchange-offering of blemished animals.

The Gemara now returns to the case of offspring with which their mother became pregnant after becoming blemished and before her redemption, and to which she gave birth after her redemption—the offspring addressed by our Mishna. And it asks:

Those offspring that

were born

after their redemption,

while their conception preceded their redemption,

what shall be done with them,

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

The Gemara first states: Concerning offspring that were also born

before their redemption,

which we derive to include from “whether male,”

there is a dispute among the amoraim

[they disputed the matter in tractate Temura 17b] as to what their status is:

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

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

until they develop a blemish and are redeemed. That is, their sanctity does not make them fit to be offered, but they cannot be redeemed without a blemish.

The question concerns those

that

were born

after their redemption,

while their conception preceded their redemption:

what shall be done with them?

Rav Huna said:

One confines them in an enclosure

[a room],

and they die

of hunger on their own. This is because:

What can one do with them

[what is it possible to do with them]?

You might say:

Let us offer them

[offer them on the altar]. This is impossible, because

they derive from a rejected sanctity

[they derive from a rejected sanctity that is unfit for offering].

You might say:

Let us redeem them

[redeem them], thereby removing the prohibition that the Sages imposed on them. This too is impossible, because

they are not sufficiently powerful to effect their own redemption,

for that rabbinic sanctity does not have the force to take hold of a redemption through which they would become nonconsecrated.

But

the scholars of the West said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina,

that this is what one should do:

Shortly before their redemption, he invests them with sanctity for the sake of that same offering

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

We raise an objection to this:

Shortly before their redemption!?

Does this mean that they are fit for redemption,

so that you suggest investing them with sanctity before that redemption? Surely they have no redemption at all, because their sanctity does not have the power to effect their redemption!?

Rather, say

that Rabbi Ḥanina said as follows:

Shortly before their mother’s redemption, he invests them with sanctity

the offspring

for the sake of that same offering,

and redeems the offspring themselves, and they become permitted.

The Gemara adds an explanation of our Mishna, which we interpreted as referring to offspring with which their mother became pregnant before their redemption, gave birth after her redemption, and which are nevertheless taught to be forbidden:

And

what is the reason

are they forbidden? Once their mother was redeemed, they should have been redeemed along with her, since a fetus is considered part of its mother!?

Rabbi Levi said:

The reason the Sages prohibited them is that the mother remains forbidden for shearing and labor even after her redemption. If we permit the offspring,

there is a decree lest one raise from them

[from their mothers, animals disqualified from consecration, after their redemption]

herds upon herds,

and come to shear and work their mothers.

It was explained above in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina that one invests the offspring in their mother’s womb, before their mother’s redemption, with sanctity for the sake of that same offering.

Ravina asked Rav Sheshet: What is the law concerning investing them with sanctity

the offspring in the wombs of animals disqualified from consecration

for any offering he wishes,

or only for the same offering to which their mother was consecrated?

He said to him,

Rav Sheshet said to Ravina:

He may invest them with sanctity

only for that same offering.

Ravina said to Rav Sheshet:

What is the reason?

He said to him,

Rav Sheshet said to Ravina: Since he

derives it by means of the phrase “in your gates”

from “which He has given you in all your gates” and “when there is a blemish in it, in your gates you shall eat it”

from the firstborn animal: Just as a firstborn animal may not be invested with sanctity for any offering he wishes, as it is written

[Leviticus 27]: “

However, a firstborn animal, which is born as a firstborn to the Lord,

no man may consecrate it,”

which shows that it cannot be consecrated with another sanctity,

so too these,

the offspring of animals disqualified from consecration,

may not be invested with sanctity for any offering 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.