Bekhorot 16a — the Talmud in English

The general rule"

that is in the latter clause

to include its milk

the milk that was milked from it, which is forbidden.

The Master said

in the beraita:

They are not redeemed —

the offspring conceived from them before redemption and born after redemption —

when unblemished, and one may not designate them for whatever sacrifice he wishes:

The Gemara infers from the beraita that if he designated the offspring while they were in their mother’s womb for that same sacrifice, and afterward they became blemished and he redeemed them, the offspring are permitted. For it implies: "

It is when unblemished" that

they are not redeemed

[unblemished animals are not redeemed];

but blemished animals are redeemed. "For

whatever sacrifice he wishes"

is the case in which one may not designate them

in order that they be redeemed;

but for that same sacrifice he may designate them —

And

how can you find it

[how can these matters be reconciled],

that he designates them

while they are still in their mother’s womb

for that same sacrifice, and they are redeemed

when they are born

with their blemish?

That is to say, these offspring are not fit for redemption at all. If so, it is not specifically unblemished animals that are not redeemed; rather, even when blemished they are not redeemed. And another difficulty is that which it teaches: “And one may not designate them for whatever sacrifice he wishes,” which implies that the offspring are not redeemed when unblemished if he designates them for whatever sacrifice he wishes; and it implies that if he designates them for that same sacrifice, they are redeemed even when unblemished. This too is impossible —

It is necessarily to explain that this is what it says: They are not redeemed when unblemished, but if they became blemished, he redeems them. And how does he redeem them when they became blemished? In a case where he designated them in their mother’s womb for a sacrifice, and not where he designated them for whatever sacrifice he wishes, but where he designated them for that same sacrifice; then he may redeem them when they become blemished after they are born, as explained above in the name of Rabbi Hanina. And if so:

Let us say that this is a refutation of Rav Huna

above, who does not agree with Rabbi Hanina, but rather places them in a chamber, and they die of themselves!?

Rav Huna could say to you:

The same law applies: even blemished animals are not redeemed; and since it taught

in the

first clause, “unblemished animals are redeemed,” it also taught in the latter clause, “unblemished animals are not redeemed,”

but in every case, even blemished animals are not redeemed.

And since it taught in the first clause "

for whatever sacrifice he wishes," it also

taught in the latter clause "

for whatever sacrifice he wishes";

but in every case, designation even for that same sacrifice is ineffective in making it possible for them to be redeemed.

We learned in a beraita — in the continuation of the beraita cited above — “But if their consecration preceded their blemish” ...

and one who slaughters them outside is exempt,

because with regard to every offering that is not accepted inside, one is not liable when slaughtering it outside; and since this offering is blemished, one is not liable for slaughtering it outside:

Rav Huna taught

in the beraita [he had the following version in the beraita]: “And one who slaughters them outside — before they were redeemed —

is liable,”

as we learned in our Mishna;

and

although ordinarily one is not liable for a blemished animal,

he establishes it

Rav Huna as referring to a blemish that is

in the dokim she-be-ayin,

and in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who says

with regard to blemished animals with dokim she-be-ayin:

“If they went up

onto the altar,

they shall not come down,”

and since they shall not come down, it is considered “accepted inside,” and one is liable for slaughtering it outside.

We learned in a beraita: “But if their consecration preceded their blemish” ...

whether before their redemption or after their redemption, one performs substitution:

Rav Nahman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: And its substitute

that is

after its redemption —

dies.

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason?

And the Gemara explains: Since

what can he do

[what can he do with the substitute]!?

Offer it?

For this is impossible, since

it comes by virtue of a rejected sanctity

for the animal itself is not offered on the altar, as it has already been redeemed —

Should you say:

Let him redeem it

[let him redeem it and the substitute will become permitted],

it is not sufficiently powerful to seize its redemption money

the sanctity that took hold of the substitute does not have the power to seize the money of its redemption.

Therefore, it dies.

Rav Amram raised an objection against him:

Since it is impossible to offer the substitute,

and it should be eaten with its blemish

[when it becomes blemished]

by the owners,

for

what difference is there between this and the substitute of a firstborn or a tithe —

which is not offered, as we derive from a verse —

as we learned

in tractate Temura:

The substitute of a firstborn or a tithe — they, their offspring, and the offspring of their offspring, forever and ever — behold, they are like a firstborn or a tithe, and they shall be eaten with their blemish by the owners.

That is to say, their law is like that of a firstborn or a tithe: if they become blemished, they are eaten with their blemish by the owners; and the substitute, too, when it becomes blemished, is eaten by the owners. Let us likewise say concerning the substitute of disqualified consecrated animals that were redeemed: since it is not offered upon the altar, it should be eaten by the owners when it becomes blemished!?

Abaye said to him: This —

the substitute of a firstborn or a tithe —

has its mother’s designation upon it, and this —

the substitute of redeemed disqualified consecrated animals —

has its mother’s designation upon it.

This has its mother’s designation upon it: it is

called “the substitute of a firstborn or a tithe,”

and therefore

just as a firstborn or a tithe, when blemished, is eaten by the owners

and does not require redemption,

so too its substitute is eaten

with its blemish by the owners

.

And this has its mother’s designation upon it: it is

called “the substitute of consecrated animals”;

just as consecrated animals may be eaten only through redemption, so too their substitutes may be eaten only through redemption — but it is not sufficiently powerful to seize its redemption money

[and behold, it does not have the power to seize the redemption money].

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rav Nahman:

From where is it derived that the substitute of disqualified consecrated animals —

which was designated among them after they became blemished —

dies? The verse states

[Leviticus 11:4]: “But this you shall not eat

of those that bring up the cud

and of those that part the hoof ...

it is impure for you,”

and we expound: There is something that possesses the signs of purity yet is forbidden to be eaten; and what is it? The substitute of disqualified consecrated animals.

And we object: But

this

verse

is needed for the five sin-offerings —

listed in Temura 21b — which

die!?

And we answer:

That is derived from

“But this you shall not eat of those that bring up the cud and of those that part the hoof ...”

of those that part the hoof ...

impure

it is for you,”

it follows.

A beraita was likewise taught: From where is it derived that the five sin-offerings die? The verse states: “But this you shall not eat of those that bring up the cud and

of those that part the hoof ...

impure

it is for you.”

And we object: But

the five sin-offerings die; it is a received halakha

[a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai], and they are not expounded from verses!?

Rather, when the verse came

“of those that part the hoof”

for the substitute of a guilt-offering,

which

is kept until it develops a blemish and he redeems it.

And we still object: But

the substitute of a guilt-offering is also a halakha:

“Whatever in the case of a sin-offering dies

in the case of a guilt-offering is kept,”

and the substitute of a sin-offering is one of the five sin-offerings that die!?

Rather, in every case

the verse “of those that part the hoof” refers to

the five sin-offerings that die. And as to your difficulty: Why do I need a verse, when it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? I can say to you:

The verse was needed, and the halakha was needed!

For if it were derived from the verse

alone,

I would have said that they go to be kept

they are kept,

the halakha teaches us

that they go to death

they go

to death

they go.

And if it were derived from the halakha

alone,

I would have said: If it happened that one ate from these five sin-offerings

[if it happened that one ate from the five sin-offerings that die],

there is only a prohibition,

there is

only a prohibition,

but

there is no negative commandment —

the verse teaches us

the verse, “But this you shall not eat of those that bring up the cud and of those that part the hoof,”

that there is a negative commandment

for eating them.

And if you wish, say:

In every case, the verse was not needed for the five sin-offerings that die, since they are a halakha; rather, the Torah said “and of those that part the hoof” in order

to compare something that comes from those that bring up the cud, namely,

the substitute of redeemed disqualified consecrated animals [as explained above],

to something that comes from those that part the hoof

namely, the five sin-offerings, in order to teach:

Just as there

[the five sin-offerings]

is death, so here there is death

and not being kept until it develops a blemish.

Mishna:

One who accepts iron-flock from a gentile,

where a gentile gave flock to an Israelite, and they agreed that after a period of time the Israelite would give him the value of the flock as it is now, whether the flock died or its value declined, [and therefore it is called “iron-flock,” because its value is guaranteed and firm like iron], and the offspring that they would have until that time they would divide between them.