Bekhorot 33a (לג.) — the Talmud in English

And Beit Hillel,

hold that the comparison of the flesh of a firstborn animal to the flesh of the breast and the thigh

applies

to a

unblemished

firstborn, which is the subject of the verse.

But

with regard to a

blemished firstborn, it is written

about it:

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

And Beit Hillel say:

If an impure person, who may not eat sacrificial meat of lesser sanctity, may eat a firstborn animal, then with regard to a non-kohein, who may eat sacrificial meat of lesser sanctity, is it not logical that he may eat a firstborn animal?

And we challenge this:

There is room to refute this: What is distinctive about an impure person? That his restriction was permitted in a communal offering.

We find another leniency with regard to him: If there is no pure kohein in that paternal division, the service of a communal offering is performed by an impure kohein, whereas this is not so with a non-kohein. Therefore, one can say that a non-kohein may not eat the flesh of a firstborn animal.

And we answer:

Beit Hillel

could say to you: Why do you bring an analogy from impurity in a communal offering?

Is the discussion here about the Temple service?

But

we are speaking about eating

the kal va-chomer.

And with regard to eating,

a non-kohein is preferable

to an impure person, as we see with regard to sacrificial meat of lesser sanctity.

And concerning that which was taught in a beraita:

And Rabbi Akiva permits,

in accordance with Beit Hillel,

even gentiles.

We raised the question:

What is Rabbi Akiva’s reason?

And we answer: 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

to be eaten

by a gentile, so too a firstborn

that is blemished

is permitted to a gentile.

But the other one,

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

Three instances of “gazelle and deer” are written

in the section of Re’eh. We derive the following laws from all of them, as follows, and no verse remains to permit a gentile.

One is for the teaching of Rabbi Yitzḥak.

As Rabbi Yitzḥak said: One who plows with an ox that is a disqualified consecrated animal receives lashes. What is the reason? “Like the gazelle and like the deer” is written with regard to it, to teach you that although it is one body, the verse made it two species. For it is as though he were plowing with a gazelle and a deer, which are two species, together.

And

likewise, one is for the teaching of

Rabbi Oshaya,

who said: One who mates an ox that is a disqualified consecrated animal, even with an animal of its own species, is considered as though he were plowing with an ox and a donkey, and receives lashes. What is the reason? “Like the gazelle and like the deer” is written with regard to it, to tell you that although it is one body, the verse made it two species, and it is as though he were mating diverse species.

And one is for the teaching of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar.

As Rabbi Elazar HaKappar said: This verse about the gazelle and the deer came to teach, and in turn is learned from: Just as a domesticated animal is slaughtered, so too the gazelle and the deer are slaughtered.

And one,

was necessary to derive:

Just as the gazelle and the deer are exempt from the law of the firstborn,

as the law of the firstborn applies only to a domesticated animal and not to a wild animal,

and from the gifts,

the foreleg, the jaws, and the maw, which are given to the kohein from a domesticated animal,

so too disqualified consecrated animals are exempt from the law of the firstborn and from the gifts.

The Sages taught: A firstborn

that is blemished,

may not be fed to women in a state of menstrual impurity

[even if they are kohanot],

the statement of Beit Shammai.

And Beit Hillel say: It may be fed to women in a state of menstrual impurity.

And we raised the question:

What is the reason of Beit Shammai?

And we answer:

As 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,

women in a state of menstrual impurity may not

eat, as an impure person is forbidden to eat sacrificial meat,

so too here,

with regard to a firstborn,

women in a state of menstrual impurity may not

eat.

And Beit Hillel

could say to you: The comparison of a firstborn to the breast of the waving

applies

to an

unblemished

firstborn.

But

with regard to a

blemished

firstborn, another verse is written about it:

“The impure and the pure

shall eat it.”

And Beit Shammai

could say to you:

This applies

when one permits an impure person,

where the impurity does not issue from his body,

such as one who became impure through contact with a corpse or a creeping creature,

but

where the impurity issues from her body, such as women in a state of menstrual impurity, it is not permitted to eat.

And we bring proof

that we find that the Merciful One distinguishes between impurity that issues from one’s body and impurity that does not issue from one’s body.

As we learned in a Mishna: The Paschal offering that was brought in impurity,

when the majority of the public had become impure through corpse impurity, and they performed the Paschal offering in impurity,

may not be eaten by men or women afflicted with a flux, by women in a state of menstrual impurity, or by women after childbirth.

The implication is that although eating it was permitted to those impure through contact with a corpse, who were its owners, nevertheless it was forbidden for one whose impurity issues from his body to eat it.

And Beit Hillel

could say to you: It is specifically

there,

with regard to a Paschal offering brought in impurity,

that the Merciful One explicitly indicated

that specifically those impure through contact with a corpse are permitted, as it is written with regard to the second Paschal offering: “If a man shall be

impure

through contact with a

person.”

And we derive from it that specifically an individual is deferred to the second Paschal offering, but not the public; and since the verse is speaking of those impure through contact with a person, we say that specifically they may eat, but not those afflicted with a flux.

But here,

with regard to a blemished firstborn,

“impure” is written without qualification.

Therefore,

there is no difference

between impurity that issues from one’s body and impurity through contact with a corpse.

The Sages taught: One may not flay an animal in the usual manner on a Festival,

one may not remove the animal’s hide through its legs in such a way that the entire hide remains intact and fit to make a vessel from it.

Similarly, one may not flay a firstborn

that is blemished,

nor disqualified consecrated animals,

even after they have been redeemed.

And we raised the question:

Granted, on a Festival

it is forbidden, since

he is undertaking labor that is of no use to him,

as it is impossible to make a vessel from the hide that day.

But with regard to a firstborn—

which tanna

forbids it?

Rav Ḥisda said: It is Beit Shammai, who say that one may not feed it to women in a state of menstrual impurity.

And we see that they hold that a blemished animal remains in its sanctity, as though it were unblemished, even after slaughter; and the same is true with regard to removing the hide in this manner: its law is that of an unblemished animal, which is forbidden because of the degradation of consecrated property. [As he is concerned lest the hide be cut, he cuts into the flesh and damages it.]

And concerning that which was taught:

“Nor disqualified consecrated animals”—

which tanna?

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

who is stringent with regard to disqualified consecrated animals even after slaughter.

As it was taught in a beraita:

If there were before him two sin-offerings,

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

one unblemished and one blemished.

And afterward one of them became blemished—

the unblemished one shall be offered

as his sin-offering, whereas

the blemished one shall be redeemed,

and its redemption money shall be used for offerings for the summer altar fund.

If the blemished one was slaughtered

after its redemption—

If

it was slaughtered

before the blood of the unblemished one was sprinkled, it is permitted to be eaten.

If

it was slaughtered

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

to derive benefit from it. Since at the time the blood of the unblemished one was sprinkled, the blemished one was still alive, the status of “a sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another” immediately applied to it, and there is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that it must die. But once the blemished one was slaughtered, it no longer possesses sanctity, and the law of “a sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another” no longer applies to it.

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

of the blemished animal was found

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

For he holds that blemished animals remain in their sanctity even after slaughter, and the law of “a sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another” applies to it. For this reason as well, one may not flay disqualified consecrated animals in the usual manner, because they remain in their sanctity.

And we challenge this:

But Rav Ḥisda should establish

the

entire

beraita

as following Beit Shammai.

Just as Beit Shammai are stringent with regard to a firstborn, so that it may not be eaten by women in a state of menstrual impurity, they should likewise be stringent with regard to other disqualified consecrated animals after slaughter.

And we answer:

Perhaps Beit Shammai stated their view only

that sanctity remains operative in it even after slaughter

with regard to a firstborn, whose sanctity comes from the womb. But with regard to disqualified consecrated animals, whose sanctity does not come from the womb, no.

And even according to Beit Shammai, sanctity does not remain operative with regard to slaughtered disqualified consecrated animals.