Bekhorot 16a (טז.) — the Talmud in English

The general rule"

which is stated in the latter clause

comes 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 with which they became pregnant before redemption and which were born after redemption—

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

The Gemara infers from the beraita that if one designates the offspring while they are in their mothers’ wombs for that particular sacrifice, and afterward they became blemished and he redeemed them, the offspring are permitted. For it implies: "

When unblemished"

is when they may not be redeemed

[unblemished animals are not redeemed],

but when blemished they may be redeemed. "

For any sacrifice he wishes"

is when one may not designate them

so that they can be redeemed,

but for that particular sacrifice one may designate them—

And

how can you find

[how can these statements be reconciled] that one designates them

for that particular sacrifice

while they are still in their mothers’ wombs,

and they are redeemed

when they are born

with their blemish?

That is to say: These offspring are not subject to redemption at all. If so, it is not specifically unblemished animals that may not be redeemed; even when blemished they may not be redeemed. Moreover, the statement “and one may not designate them for any sacrifice he wishes” is difficult, for it implies that the offspring may not be redeemed when unblemished if one designates them for any sacrifice he wishes, and implies that if one designates them for that particular sacrifice, they may be redeemed even when unblemished. This too is impossible—

It must therefore be explained that this is what it means: They may not be redeemed when unblemished, but if they become blemished, one redeems them. And how does one redeem them once they have become blemished? In a case where he designated them in their mothers’ wombs for a sacrifice, but not when he designated them for any sacrifice he wished; rather, when he designated them for that particular sacrifice. He may then redeem them after they become blemished once 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

who was cited above, for he does not agree with Rabbi Hanina, but holds that they are placed in an enclosure and die on their own!?

Rav Huna could say to you:

The same law applies: Even when blemished they may not be redeemed; and since the first clause states

in the

first clause, “They are redeemed when unblemished,” it also states in the latter clause, “They are not redeemed when unblemished,”

but in fact even when blemished they may not be redeemed.

And since the first clause states "

for any sacrifice he wishes,"

it also states in the latter clause "

for any sacrifice he wishes,"

but in fact designation even for that particular sacrifice is ineffective in order that they 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 one is not liable for slaughtering outside any offering that is not acceptable inside; and since this offering is blemished, one is not liable for slaughtering it outside:

Rav Huna teaches

in the beraita [this is how he would recite the beraita]: “And one who slaughters them outside—before they were redeemed—

is liable,”

as we learned in our Mishna,

and

although in the ordinary case of a blemished animal one is not liable,

Rav Huna establishes it

with regard to a blemish that is

an eye blemish,

and in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who says

with regard to animals with an eye blemish: "

If they ascended"

the altar,

they do not descend."

Since they do not descend, the offering is considered “acceptable 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, they effect a substitution:

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: And its substitution

that

after its redemption—

dies.

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason?

The Gemara explains: For

what can he do with it?

[what can he do with the substitute]!?

Offer it?

That is impossible, because

it derives from a sanctity that has been rejected,

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

Lest you say:

Redeem it

[redeem it and thereby permit the substitution],

its redemption money does not acquire sanctity,

the sanctity that was transferred to the substitute does not have the power to transfer itself to the redemption money.

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

[once it becomes blemished]

by the owners,

for

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

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

as we learned

in tractate Temura:

The substitute of a firstborn or tithe animal, both it and its offspring and its offspring’s offspring, forever, are like a firstborn or tithe animal, and they are eaten with their blemish by the owners.

That is, their law is like that of a firstborn or tithe animal: If they become blemished, they are eaten by their owners with their blemish. Likewise, when the substitute becomes blemished, it should be eaten by the owners. Should we not similarly say concerning the substitute of consecrated animals disqualified by a blemish that were redeemed: Since it cannot be offered on the altar, it should be eaten by the owners once it becomes blemished!?

Abaye said to him: This one—

the substitute of a firstborn or tithe animal—

has its mother’s designation upon it, whereas this one—

the substitute of consecrated animals disqualified by a blemish that were redeemed—

has its mother’s designation upon it.

This one has its mother’s designation upon it: It is called "

the substitute of a firstborn or tithe animal"

and is called so,

and therefore,

just as a firstborn or tithe animal is eaten with its blemish by the owners

and does not require redemption,

so too, its substitute is eaten

by the owners with its blemish.

And this one has its mother’s designation upon it: It is called "

the substitute of a consecrated animal."

Just as a consecrated animal may be eaten only through redemption, so too, its substitute may be eaten only through redemption; but it does not have sufficient power to acquire its redemption money

[and therefore it cannot acquire the redemption money].

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rav Naḥman:

From where is it derived concerning the substitute of consecrated animals disqualified by a blemish—

which was designated for them after they became blemished—

that it dies? The verse states [Leviticus 11:4]: “But this you shall not eat

from those that bring up the cud

and from those that part the hoof...

and among those that have split hooves...

it is impure for you,”

and we expound: There is something that possesses the signs of purity yet is forbidden to eat. What is it? The substitute of consecrated animals disqualified by a blemish.

And we challenge this: But

this

verse

is needed for the five sin-offerings

listed in Temura 21b, which

die!?

And we answer:

That [derivation comes out]

from “But this you shall not eat from those that bring up the cud and

from those that part the hoof...

impure

it is for you,”

it is derived.

A beraita was also taught in this manner: From where is it derived concerning the five sin-offerings that die? The verse states: "

But this you shall not eat from those that bring up the cud and

from those that part the hoof...

impure

it is for you."

And we challenge this: But

the fact that the five sin-offerings die is a received halakhic tradition

[it is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai], and they are not derived from verses!?

Rather, when the verse comes

“from those that part the hoof”

it comes to refer to the substitute of a guilt-offering,

which is left to graze until it develops a blemish and is redeemed.

The Gemara nevertheless asks: But

the law of the substitute of a guilt-offering is also a halakhic tradition: "

Whatever in the case of a sin-offering dies

in the case of a guilt-offering is left to graze," and the substitute of a sin-offering is one of the five sin-offerings that die!?

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

Rather, in fact, the verse “from those that part the hoof” refers to the

the verse concerning “those that have split hooves” refers to

five sin-offerings that die. As for your difficulty—why is a verse needed, since this is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai—we can answer:

Both the verse and the received tradition are necessary!

Both the verse and the halakhic tradition are necessary!

For if it were derived from the verse

alone,

I would have said that they are left to graze

they are left to graze,

and the halakhic tradition teaches us

that they go

to death

they go to death.

And if it were derived from the halakhic tradition

alone,

I would have said: If one happened to act and eat from these five sin-offerings

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

there is only a prohibition

but

there is

no

negative commandment—

The verse teaches us

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

that there is a negative commandment

against eating them.

And if you wish, say:

In fact, the verse was not needed for the five sin-offerings that die, since their law is a halakha. Rather, the Torah stated “and from those that part the hoof” in order

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

the substitute of consecrated animals disqualified by a blemish that were redeemed [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],

there is death, so too here there is death,

and not grazing until it develops a blemish.

Mishna:

One who accepts iron-flock from a gentile,

where a gentile entrusted a flock to a Jew, and they agreed that after a period of time the Jew would give him the value of the flock as it was at that time, whether the flock had died or its value had decreased, [and therefore it is called “iron-flock,” because its value is guaranteed and firm like iron], and they would divide between them the offspring born to the flock during that period.