Bekhorot 33b (לג:) — the Talmud in English

We further challenge Rav Ḥisda:

let us establish the entire

beraita

in accordance with Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon.

And what is the reason that it says that only the latter clause, which teaches “but not with regard to pesulei ha-mukdashin,” is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon?

And we answer:

Perhaps Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon stated his ruling only there,

because they retain their sanctity,

but pesulei ha-mukdashin are sufficiently potent to effect sanctity upon their redemption proceeds.

Their sanctity is more stringent, as we see from the fact that redemption takes effect with regard to them. Similarly, they will remain sacred even after they have been slaughtered.

But in the case of a firstborn, which is not sufficiently potent to effect sanctity upon its redemption proceeds, no, his ruling does not apply.

And we challenge:

But Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon

—does he

not hold

the following that we learned in a Mishna:

All pesulei ha-mukdashin may be sold in a butcher shop, slaughtered in a butcher shop, and weighed without a tarah?

Apparently,

even according to Rabbi Elazar,

since there is a benefit to the Temple treasury,

as by doing so 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 a benefit to the Temple treasury

when one trains the animal in this manner—for in this way he will sell the hide at a higher price and consequently redeem it for more money—

should the Sages permit it?

And we answer:

Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said: What improves the hide

damages the flesh.

For, because he is careful that the hide emerge intact, he cuts into the flesh and damages it, so there is no benefit to the Temple treasury.

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

The beraita cited above, which prohibits training the animal in this manner, applies according to everyone. The reason is:

because it appears as though he is performing sacrificial service with consecrated animals,

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

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says:

It is due to

a decree, lest he raise from them herds upon herds.

For if one permits him to “train” the animal, he will not slaughter the firstborn or the pesulei ha-mukdashin until he finds someone who desires an intact hide. Since he will delay, he may come to raise herds upon herds, and in the meantime people will come to violate the prohibitions against shearing and working them.

Mishna:

In the case of a firstborn seized by a blood disorder,

a dangerous illness caused by an excess of blood ,

even if it will die

if its blood is not let,

one may not let its blood

even in a place where this does not cause a blemish. This is because we decree lest, since a person is distressed over his property, he come to do so even in a place where it causes a blemish,

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda 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 this 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,

as a result of letting its blood, he

caused a blemish in it—

it may not be slaughtered on account of that blemish,

because it was he who caused it. Rather, he must wait until another blemish occurs in it.

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

For he does not intend to create the blemish, but rather to cure it; and he holds that an unintentional act is permitted .

Gemara:

The Sages taught: In the case of a firstborn seized by a blood disorder—

one may let its blood in a place where this does not cause a blemish,

but one may not let its blood in a place where this causes a

blemish, the statement of Rabbi Meir 9 .

And the Sages say:

If there is a need,

he may let its blood even in a place where this causes a blemish 10 .

Provided that he does not slaughter it

the firstborn

on account of that blemish.

Rather, he must wait until another blemish occurs in 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 Yehuda says: Even if it will die

if its blood is not let,

one may not let its blood.

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

Ḥiyya bar 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 these two matters are dependent upon one another.

As we learned: In the case of a barrel of teruma in which uncertainty arose concerning ritual impurity,

because an impure person was there and it is uncertain whether he touched it or did not touch it:

Rabbi Eliezer says: If it was

the barrel

lying in an exposed place,

an open place where it could become impure,

he should place it in a concealed place,

for although its impurity is uncertain, he is still commanded to safeguard its purity.

And similarly,

if it was

the barrel

uncovered, he should cover it.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

Even

if it was

the barrel

lying in a concealed place, he should place it in an exposed place.

If it was covered, he should uncover it.

Rabbi Yehoshua holds that one is not commanded to safeguard teruma whose impurity is uncertain, lest it become impure. Therefore it is preferable to cause it to become impure [although it is prohibited to render it impure directly], since until now it was fit neither for eating nor for any other use applicable to impure teruma, because perhaps it was still pure; by making it certainly impure, he will be able to use it as impure teruma.

Rabban Gamliel says: He should not initiate any change in it!

That is, he should leave it in its place, as he is not required to safeguard it. It is also prohibited to cause it to become impure.

And we explain the 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,

follows Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that it is prohibited to cause teruma to become impure even when this thereby rectifies it.

And the Sages,

who permitted causing a blemish in it so that it would not die and one could eat it,

follow Rabbi Yehoshua,

who holds that it is permitted to cause teruma to become impure so that one can use it.

And Rabbi Yehuda,

who says that one should do nothing to the firstborn, -

follows Rabban Gamliel,

who says that he should not initiate any change in it.

And we reject this:

From where

do we know that these two matters are dependent upon one another?

Perhaps Rabbi Meir stated his ruling only here,

with regard to a firstborn, where one may not let its blood in a place where this causes a blemish,

because he performs

a blemish

directly.

But there,

with regard to teruma,

where it is merely an indirect cause,

as he uncovers it and as a result it becomes impure, perhaps

he holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua.

And

perhaps

Rabbi Eliezer stated his ruling only there,

that one must place it in a concealed place,

lest Elijah come

and say that no impure person touched it

and purify it,

so that it will be fit for eating.

But here,

with regard to a firstborn,

if one 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 this causes a blemish,

he holds.

And the Sages stated their ruling only

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

here, where if one leaves it

without letting its blood,

it will die.

But there,

where, if he leaves it in a concealed place, there is no certainty that it will never be fit for anything, since

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,

they hold.

And Rabbi Yehoshua stated his ruling only

in

that case,

with regard to teruma,

where it is merely an indirect cause

that he effects, as he uncovers it and as a result it becomes impure.

But here,

with regard to a firstborn,

where he performs

an action

directly, he holds in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

who prohibits letting its blood in a place where this causes a blemish.

And Rabbi Yehuda stated his ruling only here,

with regard to a firstborn, where one may not let its blood even though it will die from its illness,

because he

acts directly.

But there,

with regard to teruma,

where it is merely an indirect cause,

perhaps

he holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua.

And Rabban Gamliel stated his ruling only

that he should not initiate any change in it

there, because perhaps Elijah will come and purify it.

But here,

with regard to a firstborn,

if one leaves it

without letting its blood,

it will die;

perhaps

he holds in accordance with the Sages.

Furthermore,

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

Here,

with regard to a firstborn,

they disagree based on verses.

And there,

with regard to teruma,

they disagree based on verses.

As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Everyone agrees

even the Sages who permitted causing a blemish in it by letting its blood, because since it is destined to die there is no greater blemish than this, and it is permitted to cause a blemish in a blemished animal—

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

In preparing a meal-offering, the Torah states that it may not be made through leavening. If one kneaded the dough through leavening and a second person baked it, the second person is also liable, even though it was already leavened,

as it is written: “You shall not bake it leavened” and “you shall not make

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

And similarly, they agree

with regard to one who castrates after another has castrated, that he is liable.

It is prohibited by Torah law to castrate an animal. If one cut the testicles and left them in the scrotum [and the animal was already rendered incapable of reproduction], and a second person came and detached them from the scrotum and threw them away, the second person is also liable.

As it is written: “Crushed, or smashed, or detached, or cut.

You shall not offer these 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,

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

is one not certainly liable for detaching?

Why, then, was it necessary to write “detached”?

Rather,

the verse comes for this purpose,

to include one who detaches after another has cut, that he is liable.

They disagree only with regard to causing a blemish in an already blemished animal.

Rabbi Meir holds:

It is written, “It shall be complete, for acceptance;

no blemish shall be in it.”

And we read it as “no blemish shall be caused,” meaning that it is prohibited to cause a blemish in a sacrificial animal . And from the expression “any blemish” we derive that it is prohibited to cause even an additional blemish in an already blemished animal.

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

is written to teach that only in the case of one that is complete and fit for acceptance may one not cause a blemish. But if it is already a blemished animal, it is permitted. Therefore they permit letting the blood even in a place where this causes a blemish, since this animal is a blemished animal, as it is destined to die .

And we challenge:

And Rabbi Meir—this

verse,

“It shall be complete, for acceptance,”—

what does he derive from it?

And we answer:

He requires it to exclude an already blemished animal

that is

so from the outset.

That is, it had a blemish before it was consecrated as a sacrifice, and there is no prohibition against causing a blemish in such an animal .

And we refute this:

An animal blemished from the outset—is it not obvious?

For this is

mere refuse!

The sanctity of a sacrifice never took effect upon it [only sanctity of its monetary value did], so why is a verse needed to exclude it?

And we answer:

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

The reason that we need to expound from the verse that there is no prohibition against causing a blemish in them is that

it might enter your mind to say that since they are prohibited for shearing and work

even after they have been redeemed,

with regard to blemishes

to cause them in such animals

they should likewise be prohibited. The verse teaches us

that it is permitted.

And we raise an objection:

And the Rabbis as well—the verse is written: “No blemish shall be in it.”

What do they expound from this verse?

And we answer:

With regard to causing it indirectly,

it comes to prohibit inflicting a blemish even through indirect causation.

That is what it comes to teach.