Bekhorot 33a — the Talmud in English

And Beit Hillel,

hold that: this which the flesh of a firstborn was likened to the flesh of the breast and the thigh,

applies only

to a firstborn

without a blemish

about which the verse speaks.

But

a firstborn

with a blemish, it is written

in it:

“The impure and the pure shall eat it together.”

And Beit Hillel say:

“And if an impure person, who does not eat from lesser sacred offerings, eats from a firstborn, is it not an inference from minor to major that a non-priest, who eats from lesser sacred offerings, should eat from a firstborn?”

And we raise an objection:

“There is room to refute: What is distinctive about an impure person? He was permitted in a case outside his general rule, in the service of the community.”

For we find by him another leniency: if there is no pure priest in that paternal household, the service of a communal offering is performed by an impure priest, but not by a non-priest. Therefore, it can be said that he does not eat from the flesh of a firstborn.

And we answer:

And Beit Hillel

can say to you: Why are you bringing impurity in the community?

Is it service that is being discussed

here? But

we are discussing eating

the kal va-chomer.

And with regard to eating—

a non-priest is superior

to an impure person, as we see with regard to lesser sacred offerings.

And concerning that which was taught:

“And Rabbi Akiva permits,”

according to Beit Hillel,

“even gentiles.”

We considered it:

What is Rabbi Akiva’s reason?

And we answer: for it is written at the end of the verse, “The impure and the pure shall eat it together”:

“Like the gazelle and like the deer”; just as the gazelle and the deer are permitted

for eating

to a gentile, so too a firstborn

with a blemish

is permitted to a gentile.

And the other one,

the first tanna of the beraita, who holds that Beit Hillel did not permit it to a gentile, can say to you:

“Three times ‘gazelle and deer’ are written

in the section of Re’eh. And from all of them we expound from them as follows, and no verse remains to permit it to a gentile.

One, for that which Rabbi Yitzhak taught.

For Rabbi Yitzhak said: One who plows with an ox that is one of the disqualified consecrated animals is flogged. What is the reason? “Like the gazelle and like the deer” is written concerning it, to teach you that although it is one body, the verse made it two species. For it is as though he is plowing with a gazelle and a deer, which are two species, together.

And

likewise for that which

Rabbi Oshaya

taught: One who mates an ox that is one of the disqualified consecrated animals, even with its own species, it is as though he is plowing with an ox and a donkey, and he is flogged. What is the reason? “Like the gazelle and like the deer” is written concerning it, to say to you that although it is one body, the verse made it two species, and it is as though he is mating diverse species.

And one, for that which Rabbi Elazar ha-Kappar taught.

For Rabbi Elazar ha-Kappar said: This—“gazelle and deer”—came to teach, and was found to be taught: Just as an animal [is eaten] through slaughter, so too a gazelle and a deer [are eaten] through slaughter.

And one

was needed to expound:

“Just as a gazelle and a deer are exempt from the firstborn status,”

for a firstborn applies only to a domesticated animal and not to a wild animal,

and from the gifts

the foreleg, the cheeks, and the stomach, which are given to a priest from a domesticated animal

—so too the disqualified consecrated animals are exempt from the firstborn status and from the gifts.”

The Sages taught: A firstborn

with a blemish

, one may not feed it to menstruants

[even if they are priestesses]

, the words of Beit Shammai.

And Beit Hillel say: One may feed it to menstruants.

And we considered it:

What is the reason of Beit Shammai?

And we answer:

For it is written: “And their flesh shall be yours, like the breast of the waving

and like the right thigh; it shall be yours.”

Just as there,

with regard to the breast of the waving and the right thigh,

menstruants do not

eat, for an impure person is forbidden to eat sacred offerings,

so too here,

with regard to a firstborn,

menstruants do not

eat.

And Beit Hillel

can say to you: This which a firstborn was likened to the breast of the waving,

applies only

to a firstborn

without a blemish. But

a firstborn

with a blemish,

another verse is written concerning it:

“The impure and the pure

shall eat it.”

And Beit Shammai

can say to you:

This applies only

where an impure person is permitted,

when the impurity does not issue from his body

but rather he became impure through a corpse or a creeping thing

, but where the impurity issues from his body,

such as menstruants,

it is not

permitted for eating.

And we bring proof

that we find that the Merciful One distinguishes between impurity that issues from him from his body and impurity that does not issue from him from his body.

For we learned: A Passover offering that came in impurity,

when the majority of the community became impure through impurity from a corpse, and they performed the Passover offering in impurity,

those afflicted with flux, women afflicted with flux, menstruants, and women who have given birth may not eat from it.

It follows that although it was permitted for those impure through a corpse, who were its owners, to eat it, nevertheless it was forbidden for one whose impurity issues from his body to eat.

And Beit Hillel

can say to you: It was specifically

there,

with regard to a Passover offering that comes in impurity,

that the Merciful One revealed

that specifically those impure through a corpse are permitted, for it is written concerning the second Passover: “When a man will be

impure

with regard to a

person.”

And we expound from it that specifically an individual is deferred to the second Passover, but not the community; and since the verse is speaking of those impure through a corpse, we say that specifically they shall eat, but not those afflicted with flux.

But here,

with regard to a firstborn with a blemish,

“impure” is written without qualification.

Therefore,

it makes no difference

between impurity that issues from his body and impurity from a corpse.

The Sages taught: One may not perform hirgul on a Festival,

one may not remove the animal’s hide through its legs, in such a manner that the entire hide of the animal remains whole and fit to make a utensil from it.

Similarly: One may not perform hirgul with a firstborn

with a blemish,

nor with disqualified consecrated animals

even after they have been redeemed.

And we considered it:

Granted, a Festival

is forbidden, since

he is exerting an exertion that is not fit for him,

as it is impossible to make a utensil from it today.

But a firstborn—

which tanna

forbids it?

Rav Hisda said: It is Beit Shammai, who say: One may not feed it to menstruants.

And we see that they hold that an animal with a blemish remains in its sanctity, as though it were without a blemish, even after slaughter; and the same law applies with regard to removing the hide in this manner: its law is like that of an animal without a blemish, which is forbidden because of contempt for sacred offerings. [For he is concerned that the hide may be cut, and he cuts the flesh and damages it].

And concerning that which it teaches:

“Nor with disqualified consecrated animals”—

which tanna is it?

Rav Hisda said: It is Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon,

who is stringent with disqualified consecrated animals even after slaughter.

For it was taught:

There were before him two sin offerings,

which he had set aside as two unblemished offerings for the purpose of one sin offering, so that if one were lost he could achieve atonement through the other,

one unblemished and one with a blemish.

And afterward a blemish occurred in one of them—

the unblemished one shall be offered

for his sin offering, whereas

the one with a blemish shall be redeemed,

and its money shall be used for burnt offerings for the summer of the altar.

If the one with a blemish was slaughtered

after its redemption—

If

it was slaughtered

before the blood of the unblemished one was sprinkled, it is permitted for eating.

If

it was slaughtered

after the blood of the unblemished one was sprinkled, it is forbidden

for benefit. Since at the time the blood of the unblemished one was sprinkled, the one with a blemish was alive, the law of “a sin offering whose owners attained atonement” immediately applied to it, and it is a tradition given to Moses from Sinai that it goes to death. But after the one with a blemish was slaughtered, there is no sanctity in it, and the law of “a sin offering whose owners attained atonement” will no longer apply to it.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: Even if the flesh

of the one with a blemish was found

in a pot, and the blood of the unblemished one was sprinkled, it is forbidden.

For he holds that animals with blemishes remain in their sanctity even after slaughter, and the law of “a sin offering whose owners attained atonement” applies to it. And for this reason one may not perform hirgul with disqualified consecrated animals, because they remain in their sanctity.

And we raise an objection:

And Rav Hisda, let him establish it

for

the entire

beraita

as Beit Shammai?

For just as Beit Shammai are stringent with regard to a firstborn, which is not eaten by menstruants, so too they should be stringent with regard to the rest of the disqualified consecrated animals after slaughter.

And we answer:

Perhaps, Beit Shammai stated

only up to this point—that even after slaughter, sanctity applies to it—

only with regard to a firstborn, whose sanctity is from the womb. But disqualified consecrated animals, whose sanctity is not from the womb, no.

And even according to Beit Shammai, sanctity does not apply to slaughtered disqualified consecrated animals.