Bekhorot 33b — the Talmud in English

We further object to Rav Hisda:

And let us establish the whole

beraita

in accordance with Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon?

And for what reason does he say that only the latter clause, which teaches “but not in pesulei ha-mukdashin,” is according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon?

And we answer:

Perhaps, Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon said that there only

because they remain in their sanctity,

but pesulei ha-mukdashin, whose sanctity is strong enough for their redemption to take effect upon them.

For their sanctity is more stringent, as we see that redemption takes effect upon them. And likewise they will remain sacred even after they have been slaughtered.

But a firstborn, whose sanctity is not strong enough for its redemption to take effect upon it, no.

And we object:

And as for Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon,

does he

not hold

that which we learned in the Mishna:

All pesulei ha-mukdashin are sold in a butcher’s shop, slaughtered in a butcher’s shop, and weighed without a scale?

It follows,

even according to Rabbi Elazar,

that since there is benefit to the sacred property,

for through this one redeems it for a higher price,

the Sages permitted it

despite the fact that they possess sanctity.

Here too,

with regard to flaying the hide,

since there is benefit to the sacred property

when he practices the hide-flaying, for through this he will sell the hide for a higher price and, consequently, redeem it for more money—

should the Sages not permit it for him?

And we answer:

Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said: That which improves the hide—

damages the flesh.

For because he is careful that the hide should come out whole, he cuts into the flesh and damages it, and there is no benefit to the sacred property.

In the West, they said in the name of Ravina:

The above beraita, which prohibits practicing the hide-flaying, is according to everyone. And the reason is:

because he appears to be performing work with consecrated animals,

for he prepares the hide for ordinary work while the hide is still upon the consecrated animal.

Rabbi Yosei son of Rav Avin says:

because of

a decree lest he raise from them flock after flock.

For if you permit him to “practice the hide-flaying,” he will not slaughter the firstborn and the pesulei ha-mukdashin until he finds a person who desires an intact hide; and because he delays, he will come to raise flock after flock. Meanwhile, he will stumble with regard to them in the prohibition of shearing and work.

Mishna:

A firstborn seized by blood,

a dangerous illness caused by an excess of blood .

even if it will die

if they do not let its blood,

they may not let its blood

even in a place where this does not cause a blemish. For we decree lest, because a person is frantic regarding his property, he come to do so even in a place where it causes a blemish,

the words of Rabbi Judah. 6 .

And the Sages say: He may let its blood, provided that he does not cause a blemish in it.

For they hold that, on the contrary, if they do not permit him to let its blood in a place where it does not cause a blemish, he will not distinguish between one place and another and will come to do so in a place where it causes a blemish.

And if

because of letting its blood

he caused a blemish in it—

it may not be slaughtered on account of it,

on account of this blemish. Since he caused it, rather he must wait until another blemish befalls it.

Rabbi Shimon says: He may let its blood, even though he causes a blemish in it.

For he does not intend to impose the blemish, but rather to cure it. And he holds that an act whose result is unintended is permitted .

Gemara:

The Sages taught: A firstborn seized by blood—

they let its blood in a place where they do not cause a blemish

8. And they do not let its blood in a place where they cause a

blemish, the words of Rabbi Meir. 9 .

And the Sages say:

If there is a need,

he may let its blood even in a place where he causes a blemish

10. Provided that he does not slaughter

the firstborn

on account of that blemish.

Rather, he must wait until another blemish befalls it .

Rabbi Shimon says: It may even be slaughtered on account of that blemish.

Since he did not cause the blemish with the intention of permitting the firstborn, but rather so that it would not die .

Rabbi Judah says: Even if it dies

if they do not let its blood,

they may not let its blood.

Rabbi Elazar taught it to his son. And some say, Rabbi

Hiyya son of Abba taught it to his son.

Just as there is a dispute here

with regard to a firstborn,

so is there a dispute with regard to a barrel of teruma.

For this depends upon that.

For we learned in the Mishna: A barrel of teruma in which uncertainty regarding impurity arose.

There was an impure person there, and it is uncertain whether he touched it or did not touch it.

Rabbi Eliezer says: If the

barrel

is placed in an exposed place,

an open place where it can become impure,

he should place it in a concealed place,

for although it is of uncertain purity, he is still enjoined to preserve its purity.

And likewise,

if the

barrel

is uncovered, he should cover it.

Rabbi Joshua says:

Even

if the

barrel

is placed in a concealed place, he should place it in an exposed place.

If it is covered, he should uncover it.

And Rabbi Joshua holds that, with regard to teruma of uncertain impurity, one is not enjoined to preserve it so that it should not become impure. Therefore, it is preferable to cause impurity to come upon it [but it is prohibited to make it impure directly], for until now it is fit neither for eating nor for another use customary with impure teruma, because perhaps it is still pure; and through its becoming certainly impure, he will be able to use it as impure teruma.

Rabban Gamaliel says: He should not initiate anything with it!

That is, he should leave it in its place, since he need not preserve it. And it is likewise prohibited even to cause impurity to come upon it.

And we explain this statement that just as there is a dispute with regard to a firstborn, so is there a dispute with regard to teruma:

Rabbi Meir,

who prohibits causing a blemish in it even in order to save it—

is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that it is prohibited to cause teruma to come to impurity even when he thereby renders it usable.

And the Sages,

who permitted imposing a blemish in it so that it should not die and he would be able to eat it—

are in accordance with Rabbi Joshua,

who holds that it is permitted to cause impurity to come upon teruma so that he will be able to use it.

And Rabbi Judah,

who says that one should do nothing to the firstborn— \-

is in accordance with Rabban Gamaliel,

who says that he should not initiate anything with it.

And we reject this:

From where

does it follow that this depends upon that?

Perhaps, Rabbi Meir said this here

with regard to a firstborn, that they do not let its blood in a place where it causes a blemish,

only because he is causing

a blemish

directly.

But there,

with regard to teruma,

where it is merely indirect causation,

for he uncovers it and through this it becomes impure, perhaps

he holds in accordance with Rabbi Joshua.

And

perhaps

Rabbi Eliezer said this there

that he must place it in a concealed place,

only because perhaps Elijah will come

and say that no impure person touched it

and purify it,

and it will be fit for eating.

But here

with regard to a firstborn,

for if he leaves it

and does not let its blood,

it will die,

perhaps

he holds in accordance with the Sages,

who permit letting its blood even in a place where it causes a blemish

.

And the Sages said this

that it is permitted to let its blood in a place where it causes a blemish only

here, for if he leaves it

without letting its blood,

it will die.

But there,

for if he places it in a concealed place, there is no certainty that it will never be fit for anything, because

perhaps Elijah will come and purify it,

perhaps

they hold in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

who says that he should place it in a concealed place,

.

And Rabbi Joshua said this

only

there

with regard to teruma,

where it is merely indirect causation

that he performs, uncovering it and through this causing it to become impure.

But here

with regard to a firstborn,

where he performs

an act

directly, he holds in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

who prohibits letting blood in a place where it causes a blemish.

And Rabbi Judah said this here

with regard to a firstborn, for which they do not let its blood even if it will die from its illness,

only because he

acts directly.

But there,

with regard to teruma,

where it is merely indirect causation,

perhaps

he holds in accordance with Rabbi Joshua.

And Rabban Gamaliel said

that he should not initiate anything with it only

there, because perhaps Elijah will come and purify it.

But here

with regard to a firstborn,

for if he leaves it

without letting its blood,

it will die,

perhaps

he holds in accordance with the Sages.

Furthermore,

there is a reason that the disputes are not dependent upon one another.

Here,

with regard to a firstborn,

they dispute over verses.

And there,

with regard to teruma,

they dispute over verses.

For Rabbi Hiyya son of Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Everyone agrees,

even the Sages, who permitted imposing a blemish in it through letting blood, because since it is destined to die, there is no greater blemish than this, and it is permitted to impose a blemish in an already blemished animal,

with regard to one who ferments after another has fermented, that he is liable. 13 .

With regard to making a meal-offering, the Torah states that it is prohibited to make it through fermentation. If one kneaded the dough as leaven, and the second baked it, the second is also liable, even though it was already leavened,

as it is written: “It shall not be baked leavened” and “You shall not make

leaven,” and baking is included in making; why, then, was it necessary to write it? Rather, to teach that just as one is liable for baking, so is one liable for each and every act.

And likewise they agree

with regard to castrating after another has castrated, that he is liable.

It is prohibited by Torah law to castrate an animal. If one cut off the testicles and left them in the scrotum [and it can no longer reproduce], and a second came and tore them from the scrotum and threw them away, the second is also liable,

as it is written: “Crushed, and mutilated, and torn, and cut off.

You shall not offer them to the Lord, and in your land you shall not do so.” And this is how we expound it:

If one is liable for cutting off,

as it is written, “in your land you shall not do so,” even though he left them in the scrotum,

is it not all the more so that he is liable for tearing them away!

And why is it necessary to write “and torn”?

Rather,

the verse comes for this purpose,

to include one who tears away after another has cut off, that he is liable.

They disagree only with regard to imposing a blemish upon an already blemished animal.

For Rabbi Meir holds:

It is written, “It shall be perfect for acceptance,

there shall be no blemish in it.”

And we read it, “there shall not be,” teaching that it is prohibited to impose a blemish upon a sacrifice and from the fact that it is written “any blemish,” we include that even upon an already blemished animal it is prohibited to impose an additional blemish.

And the Sages hold: “It shall be perfect for acceptance”

is written, to say that only in one who is perfect and fit for acceptance may you not impose a blemish. But if it is already blemished, it is permitted. Therefore they permit letting blood even in a place where it causes a blemish, for this animal is blemished since it is destined to die .

And we object:

And Rabbi Meir—this

verse,

“It shall be perfect for acceptance”—

what does he do with it?

And we answer:

He requires it to exclude an animal blemished

that is

so from the outset.

It had a blemish before it was consecrated as a sacrifice, and there is no prohibition against imposing a blemish upon it .

And we refute:

One blemished from the outset—is it not obvious!

For

it is merely an ordinary animal!

For the sanctity of a sacrifice never took effect upon it [but monetary sanctity did]; why, then, is a verse needed to exclude them?

And we answer:

Rather, to exclude pesulei ha-mukdashin after their redemption.

And the reason that we need to expound from the verse that there is no prohibition against imposing a blemish upon them is:

It might enter your mind to say: Since they are prohibited in shearing and work

even after they have been redeemed,

with regard to blemishes,

to impose them upon them,

they should likewise be prohibited. It teaches us

that the verse permits it.

And we object:

And as for the Rabbis too, is it not written: “No blemish whatsoever shall be in it”?

And what do they expound from this verse?

And we answer:

For indirect causation,

to prohibit inflicting a blemish even by means of indirect causation.

That is what it comes [to teach].